Exchanging Garlands Not A Recognized Mode Of Marriage; Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suspends License

"Exchange of garlands is not a recognized mode of marriage. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he had married the corpus cannot be accepted." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the mere exchange of garlands does not constitute a legally recognized marriage.

A division bench comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that essential customary rituals must be performed to validate a marital tie, while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man claiming to be the husband of the corpus. The Court also came down heavily on a Notary Public for executing a marriage agreement, suspending his license for illegally acting as a Marriage Officer in blatant violation of statutory rules.

The petitioner, Chandrapal Singh Parihar, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging that his legally wedded wife was in the illegal detention of her father. The corpus was produced before the Court by the police, where she stated that she had been forced to leave her home and participate in a court marriage due to continuous threats by the petitioner to upload her private photographs on Instagram and Facebook. She explicitly denied that any 'Saptapadi' was performed, stating that their signatures were merely obtained on a register by a lawyer, followed by an exchange of garlands outside the Datia Court premises.

The primary question before the Court was whether the exchange of garlands, without the performance of the traditional 'Saptapadi' ritual, constitutes a validly recognized mode of marriage. The Court was also called upon to determine the legal validity of Notaries executing documents or certificates pertaining to the registration of marriages and the consequences of such unauthorized actions.

Exchange Of Garlands Insufficient For Valid Marriage

Addressing the validity of the marriage claimed by the petitioner, the High Court emphasized that statutory requirements and customary ceremonies must be strictly fulfilled. The bench noted the explicit statement of the corpus that only garlands were exchanged outside the court premises and no traditional Hindu rituals were conducted. Consequently, the Court categorically rejected the petitioner's claim of a valid marital tie and refused to recognize him as the legally wedded husband.

"So far as the present case is concerned, it is the stand of the corpus that no Saptapadi was performed and only the garlands were exchanged. Exchange of garlands is not a recognized mode of marriage."

Notary Public Lacks Jurisdiction To Act As Marriage Officer

The Court expressed utter shock upon discovering a notarized document in the police case diary titled "ववाह वाद ववाह के पंजीयन बावत लिखतम" (Affidavit regarding marriage registration), executed by Raghavendra Samadhiya, a Notary Public in Datia. The bench observed that the Notary had illegally acted as a Registration Officer, giving the young woman the false impression that she had performed a legally valid court marriage. The Court strongly condemned this practice, observing that Notaries are exploiting young individuals by taking advantage of their lack of legal knowledge.

"This is a glaring example of the misadventurous act of the Notary who by executing the [document] has exceeded his jurisdiction."

Utter Defiance Of Extant Law And Government Directives

Relying on previous rulings of the Division and Single Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Lalit Rajak and Bundel Singh Lodhi, as well as the Orissa High Court, the bench reiterated that a Notary has no jurisdiction to act as a Marriage Officer. The Court extensively quoted an Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, dated October 10, 2024. This memorandum explicitly states that executing marriage or divorce affidavits is not the function of a Notary under Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952. The bench observed that despite such clear judicial and executive directives, some Notaries continue to operate in utter defiance of the law.

Suspension Of Notary's License And Stern Action

Taking strict punitive action against the specific Notary involved, the Court ruled that he had spoiled the rights of the persons involved by registering a so-called marriage. The Court directed that his license to act as a Notary Public shall remain under suspended animation and ordered him to immediately stop functioning in Datia. The Court further issued a show-cause notice directing him to explain why his license should not be permanently cancelled by the competent authority, and directed the High Court registry to institute a separate case against him.

Police Investigation Into Petitioner's Criminal Threats

The State counsel informed the Court that the corpus had filed a separate complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, regarding the extortionate threats extended by the petitioner. The Court directed the police to actively consider this complaint. The bench noted that if the petitioner is found to have committed any criminal offence, appropriate action shall be taken strictly under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, granting the authorities ten days to complete the exercise.

The High Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition, refusing to hand over the custody of the corpus to the petitioner. Respecting the willingness of the corpus, the Court permitted her to return home with her parents to pursue her studies and directed the police officers to safely hand over her custody after completing all necessary paper formalities.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026