Section 138 NI Act | Cheque Bounce Complaint Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold Merely For Non-Production Of Postal Track Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court Departmental Dismissal Based On Identical Evidence Discarded By Criminal Court Amounts To 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Kerala Lok Ayukta Amendment Upheld: High Court Rules Lok Ayukta Is Not A Court, Its Declaration Can Be Changed To Recommendation Subsidized Industrial Plots Are Meant To Generate Employment, Allottees Must Strictly Adhere To Timebound Project Schedules: Supreme Court Allottees Cannot Keep Subsidised Land Unutilised: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Piaggio's UP Industrial Plot CAG Audit Cannot Substitute Criminal Investigation To Trace Money Trails: Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs CBI To Probe Arunachal Pradesh Public Contracts, Says Constitutional Violation Not Diluted By Statistics Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Multiple Accused Participated In A Sudden Fight: Supreme Court Mere Use Of Abusive Word 'Bastard' Does Not Amount To Obscenity Under Section 294(b) IPC: Supreme Court Independent Medical Board's Opinion Crucial To Prevent Harassment Of Doctors In Consent Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case High Court Can Examine Questions Of Fact Under Section 482 CrPC To Prevent Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Surgeon 'Every Link Must Be Conclusively Established': Supreme Court Acquits Constable In Murder Case, Reiterates Strict Standard For Circumstantial Evidence Murder Conviction Cannot Rest Solely On Voice Identification In Darkness: Supreme Court Acquits Police Constable After 12 Years CCTV Footage Belies Assault Claims: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Neighbours Karta Cannot Gift Entire Joint Family Property To One Coparcener Without Consent; Settlement Void Ab Initio: Madras High Court Fresh Application For Return Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata Despite Favourable Supreme Court Ruling On Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Registration Of Adoption Deed Not Mandatory For Compassionate Appointment Under Hindu Adoptions Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Company Cannot Claim Contributory Negligence Without Examining Driver Or Challenging Charge Sheet: AP High Court Accused In Child Pornography Cases Cannot Be Discharged Merely Because Age Of Unidentified Victims Cannot Be Conclusively Proved: Delhi High Court Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court 138 NI Act | Signing Board Resolution Doesn't Make Director Liable For Cheque Bounce: Supreme Court Written Reply To Show Cause Notice Sufficient, No Right To Personal Hearing For Borrowers Before Fraud Classification: Supreme Court Upholds RBI Master Directions Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Gated Community Association Cannot Exclude LIG/EWS Allottees, Single Unified Society Mandatory: Telangana High Court

'No Hindu Marriage Without Ceremonies,' Declares Marriage Null and Void: Supreme Court Held certificate issued by Temple Have No Evidentiary Value in the absence rites and customs

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has declared the marriage between Dolly Rani and Manish Kumar Chanchal null and void due to the non-performance of requisite Hindu marriage ceremonies. The judgment, delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih on April 19, 2024, underscores the importance of adhering to traditional Hindu marriage rituals, particularly the saptapadi (seven steps), as mandated by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also quashed various legal proceedings related to the marriage and disposed of the transfer petition in light of a joint application under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The case originated from a transfer petition filed by Dolly Rani under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to transfer the divorce petition filed by Manish Kumar Chanchal from Muzaffarpur, Bihar to Ranchi, Jharkhand. Both parties, trained commercial pilots, had claimed to have married on July 7, 2021, obtaining a marriage certificate from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.) and subsequently a registration under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. However, significant differences and legal disputes soon arose between the couple, leading to the filing of various legal proceedings, including an FIR by Dolly Rani alleging dowry harassment and criminal cases against Manish Kumar and his family.

Validity of Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act: The Supreme Court emphasized that a Hindu marriage must be solemnized with appropriate ceremonies and in due form. "The word 'solemnized' means to perform the marriage with ceremonies in proper form. Unless and until the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be 'solemnized'," the bench noted. In this case, the couple did not perform the saptapadi, a crucial element for a valid Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Act.

Marriage Certificate and Registration: The court found that the marriage certificate issued by the Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.) and the subsequent registration under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, were not valid. "The certificate issued by Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.) in the absence of any indication as to the rites and customs that were performed would not be a certificate evidencing a Hindu marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act," the court observed. Consequently, the registration of such a marriage is of no legal consequence.

Legal Reasoning: The judgment extensively discussed the necessity of following the prescribed ceremonies for a valid Hindu marriage. "In the absence of there being any valid Hindu marriage, the Marriage Registration Officer cannot register such a marriage under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act," the court stated. It further highlighted that the registration of a marriage under Section 8 is only to confirm that the parties have undergone a valid marriage ceremony in accordance with Section 7 of the Act.

Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked, "A Hindu marriage is a sacrament and has a sacred character. The critical conditions for the solemnizing of a Hindu marriage should be assiduously, strictly and religiously followed." This observation underscores the court's emphasis on the sanctity and ritualistic importance of Hindu marriages.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision to declare the marriage null and void reaffirms the legal framework governing Hindu marriages, highlighting the necessity of performing traditional ceremonies. By quashing the associated legal proceedings, the court has also provided clarity on the status of marriages that do not conform to the prescribed rituals. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on similar cases, ensuring that the sanctity of Hindu marriage ceremonies is upheld in legal contexts.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal

 

Latest Legal News