Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras 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