Facts
- When the appellant was brought to see the respondent, a “Guru” who gave religious lectures at his Lucknow home, she was still a minor. With the exception of her father, every member of the family held the belief that the Guru bestowed upon them a particular’special prasad’ following the speech that caused them to go unconscious.
- According to the allegations, Respondent phoned the appellant and her mother under the guise of singing some documents on what they believed to be Gurupurnima. When the appellant was only eighteen years and twelve days old on August 5, 2009, the respondent called the appellant’s father to let him know that he had married the appellant on July 5, 2009, and that the marriage had been officially registered on August 3, 2009. A police report under IPC Sections 419, 420, and 496 was filed against the respondent.
- The respondent filed a complaint under Section 9 of the Act demanding restitution of conjugal rights, while the appellant filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare the marriage null and void because she never gave her consent to the marriage.
- The statements made by several witnesses contained inconsistencies, according to the Family Court. But according to the appellant’s father’s criminal complaint, the appellant was brought to the Registrar’s Office and the Arya Samaj Mandir in order to get married.
- After eating the “prasad,” the appellant claimed she was coerced into signing documents. The Registrar’s Office and the Arya Samaj Mandir were not isolated locations where the respondent could have coerced the respondent into doing anything, the Family Court noted, and no medical test was conducted if the appellant felt uneasy after consuming the prasad.
- Due to the appellant’s and her mother’s inability to provide proof that they were not present at the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar’s Office—and because they were educated and knew what they were signing—the claim under Section 12 was dismissed. In contrast, the Family Court simply noted that the respondent was prepared to accept the appellant as his wife in the complaint for restitution of conjugal rights, and as a result, the claim was granted.
- The appellant’s attorney challenged the Family Court’s ruling, claiming that the marriage and its registration were fraudulent acts committed by the respondent. On the other hand, respondent counsel argued that as well-educated women, they would not have visited the Registrar’s Office and the Arya Samaj Temple without their own free will.
Issues
1. The High Court was asked to decide whether any marriages between the parties were formally sealed under Section 7?
2.Whether the appellant gave his or her free will and agreement to the marriage or if it was arranged fraudulently?
Judgement
- According to the Allahabad High Court, a marriage certificate from the Registrar of Hindu Marriages or Arya Samaj Mandir does not, by itself, establish a couple’s marital status. According to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the person asserting the factum of marriage must present proof or witnesses attesting to the performance of Saptapadi and other Hindu marital rituals and customs.
- The panel, which included Justices Om Prakash Shukla and Rajan Roy, noted According to the “Rig Veda,” when a Hindu couple performs Saptapadi, the groom greets his bride, “With seven steps we have become friends (sakha),” upon finishing the seventh step. May I become friends with you; may I never be cut off from their relationship.” Consequently, this ritual is required unless it can be demonstrated that it is not customary in a certain location.
- The High Court was asked to decide whether any marriages between the parties were formally sealed under Section 7 of the Act and whether the appellant gave his or her free will and agreement to the marriage or if it was arranged fraudulently. The Court questioned whether the appellant may leave the respondent’s society if the marriage was lawful or if an order for the restitution of conjugal rights could be granted.
- The Trial Court “missed the woods for the trees,” as the Court put it, when it relied on the dates to determine Gurupurnima. The appellant never acknowledged being married to the respondent, despite it being against her Hindu customs, the court said. It further claimed that her signatures were obtained unlawfully on documents used for marriage. It was decided that these accusations could not be interpreted as a recognition of the parties’ marriage or their relationship as husband and wife.
- The appellant’s father filed the FIR, but the court determined that the Trial Court erred In relying on it because the father was not present during the alleged ceremony. As a result, it was decided that neither the appellant nor her mother would be bound by anything the father said in his FIR. Given the appellant’s persistent and unwavering refusal to get married, the Court determined that the respondent, who asserted the facts, had the burden of demonstrating that the marriage was consummated in accordance with Hindu rites and customs.
- The Court decided that an Arya Samaj Mandir marriage certificate did not demonstrate that the marriage was consummated in accordance with Hindu rituals and traditions. It was decided that the respondent had not presented any witnesses or supporting documentation to demonstrate that the marriage had been consummated in line with Hindu rituals and traditions. According to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Hindu marriage may be performed in accordance with Hindu ceremonies and customs, which include the bride and groom circumambulating the sacred fire seven times, or Saptapadi.
- The Court noted that the respondent had not contended that marriage was consummated in accordance with Section 7 of the Act in either his application for the recovery of conjugal rites or his response to the suit under Section 12. The court cited Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, in which the Supreme Court ruled that marriage must occur in accordance with Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a certificate of marriage issued by Vadik Jankalayan Samiti under the U.P. Registration Rules, 2017 to be deemed genuine.
- The Court further found that no performance of marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and traditions was stated in the certificate provided by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages, which merely relied on the certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir. As such, the certificate cannot be used to support a claim that the parties’ marriage is lawful. The Court concluded that there had never been a marriage between the parties because “the said certificates have no significance in the eyes of law and do not by themselves prove such marriage,” and because “prerequisites of a valid marriage in the form of customary rites and ceremonies required for a Hindu marriage were never performed.” The return of marital rights lawsuit was dismissed.
Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava [FIRST APPEAL No. – 239 of 2023]
Aishwarya, B.A.L.Lb.(Hons), Mody University Of Science And Technology, Laxmangarh
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
