Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Marriage Cannot Be Solemnized Without Proper Rites and Ceremonies: Allahabad High Court

23 August 2024 12:58 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has declared the alleged marriage between the appellant and the respondent as null and void due to the lack of customary rites and ceremonies required under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, overturns the Family Court's decision which had dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 

Facts of the Case: The appellant filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming that her alleged marriage to the respondent was fraudulent and without her consent. The respondent, on the other hand, filed a suit under Section 9 of the same Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both suits were consolidated and decided by a common judgment, which the appellant challenged. 

The appellant's family, influenced by the respondent, a self-proclaimed spiritual guru, was allegedly manipulated into believing that a marriage had taken place. The respondent claimed the marriage was solemnized on 05.07.2009 at Arya Samaj Mandir and registered on 03.08.2009. However, the appellant contended that she had never consented to the marriage and that it was based on deceit and fraud. 

Court Observations and Views: 

Credibility of Customary Rites: The High Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the necessary rites and ceremonies for a valid Hindu marriage, as stipulated in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, were not performed. "The respondent has failed to prove that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies," the bench noted. The court highlighted that the presence of the appellant at the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office did not suffice to establish a valid marriage. 

 

Legal Reasoning: The judgment extensively discussed the importance of performing the requisite ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. The court reiterated that a valid marriage under Hindu law requires the performance of specific rites and ceremonies, which were not proven in this case. "The burden to prove the marriage as per Hindu rites and customs was upon the respondent, and he failed to discharge this burden," the court stated. 

Quotes from the Judgment: Justice Rajan Roy remarked, "Unless and until the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be 'solemnized' in accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955." 

Justice Om Prakash Shukla added, "The issuance of a marriage certificate by itself does not establish a valid marriage in the absence of proof of the requisite ceremonies." 

Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court's ruling underscores the critical importance of adhering to the prescribed ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. By declaring the alleged marriage null and void, the judgment reinforces the legal framework that safeguards individuals from fraudulent claims of marriage. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases, emphasizing the necessity of proving the performance of customary rites and ceremonies. 

Case Title: XXXXX  VS  XXXX

Date of Decision:05.07.2024 

Latest Legal News