Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court 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 State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 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

Marriage in Arya Samaj Is Valid If Performed as per Vedic Rites — Certificate Alone Is Not Conclusive Proof: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Cruelty Case

21 April 2025 11:29 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


“Place of Ceremony Is Irrelevant — It’s the Rites and Customs That Make the Marriage Valid”, - In a crucial ruling that clarifies the legal standing of marriages performed in Arya Samaj Mandirs, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a criminal case under Sections 498A and 506 IPC, asserting that a Hindu marriage conducted in Arya Samaj Mandir is valid if solemnized as per Vedic rituals, regardless of the registration status or place of performance.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, deciding the Application under Section 482 CrPC No. 38746 of 2024, held: “Any marriage solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir as per the Vedic procedure is a valid marriage as it fulfills the requirements of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”

“Arya Samaj Certificate Is Not Statutory Proof, But Marriage Can Still Be Valid If Rituals Performed”
The applicant, Maharaj Singh, had approached the Court to quash criminal proceedings initiated by his wife, who had filed an FIR alleging cruelty and harassment for dowry. Singh’s primary argument was that their alleged marriage was invalid, having been performed in Arya Samaj, which he claimed had no legal sanctity, and that the marriage certificate was forged.
His counsel relied on the judgment in Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman, where it was held that Arya Samaj marriage certificates do not have statutory force.
However, the High Court drew a crucial distinction:
“The Court did not observe that if the marriage was performed as per Hindu Customs and Rites on the premises of Arya Samaj even that marriage will be invalid.”
Citing both Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025) 2 SCC 587 and Seema v. Ashwini Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578, the Court held:
“Even if the registration certificate has been issued under the U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 or 2017, that itself is not conclusive proof of marriage unless the marriage was performed as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”

“Kanyadan, Saptapadi, Panigrahan — If These Are Performed, the Marriage Is Binding”
The Court emphasized that under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, what matters is performance of customary rites and ceremonies, especially Saptapadi (seven steps before the sacred fire), if applicable.
“The place is not relevant — whether it is a home, temple, or Arya Samaj Mandir. What matters is performance of rituals like Kanyadan, Panigrahan and Saptapadi.”
Supporting evidence from the complainant and the Purohit who solemnized the marriage confirmed that the marriage was conducted in Radha Rani Mandir of Arya Samaj as per Hindu customs.

“Cruelty Under Section 498A Doesn’t Require Proof of Dowry Demand”: Allegations Made by Wife Enough to Proceed
The petitioner also argued that there was no demand for dowry, and therefore Section 498A IPC was wrongly invoked. The Court rejected this by relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao (SLP Crl. No. 9243/2024):
“The core of the offence under Section 498A lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry.”
“Merely subjecting the wife to cruelty is sufficient to attract Section 498A IPC.”
The Court noted that the wife’s statement under Section 161 CrPC contained specific allegations of physical and mental harassment, which could not be brushed aside at this preliminary stage.

“Disputed Questions of Fact Can’t Be Tried in a Quashing Petition”: Court Refuses Relief Under Section 482 CrPC
Justice Deshwal concluded that the dispute over the validity of the Arya Samaj marriage and the authenticity of the certificate involved questions of fact which could only be determined during trial.
“The contention that the alleged marriage is invalid is misconceived and also being a disputed question of fact cannot be considered at this stage.”
Hence, the application was dismissed and the criminal proceedings allowed to continue.
“If a Hindu marriage is performed with proper customs and rituals, even in Arya Samaj Mandir, it is valid. The certificate is only secondary — what matters is the ceremony itself.”

Date of Decision: 8 April 2025
 

Latest Legal News