Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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