Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal

INTRODUCTION

The Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal case of 2024 attracted great attention to the legal prerequisites for a legitimate marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The verdict stressed the necessity of following to the mandated rituals listed in Section 7 of the Act, which demands the execution of key rites, including the saptapadi (seven walks around the holy fire) when applicable, based on the customs of the community. The court stressed that just getting a marriage certificate is inadequate to prove the validity of a marriage. It was underlined that although these documents are helpful as evidence, they do not confer marital status unless the required rituals and ceremonies are performed in compliance with religious and cultural standards. This case illustrated the interplay between traditions and statute law, reinforcing the notion that a Hindu marriage cannot be deemed lawful until both are observed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The question was whether Dolly Rani, the petitioner, and Manish Kumar Chanchal, the respondent, were legally married. The petitioner disputed the union’s legality, claiming that no lawful marriage had been consummated between them in accordance with the customs and ceremonies mandated by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. She said that none of the procedures required by Section 7 of the Act, including the saptapadi (seven walks around the holy fire) and other necessary ceremonies, were carried out. The petitioner contended that the document did not represent a valid marriage and was obtained under pressure. She argued that the certificate lacked legal legitimacy since it lacked the necessary rites mandated by Hindu law. She also asked the court to declare that the couples were not married and to provide her approval to live freely without any future responsibilities stemming from the alleged marriage.The respondent endorsed the idea that they ought to be let to conduct their lives independently and did not dispute the petitioner’s assertions. Thus, the case concerned whether the parties may be granted marital status if a marriage certificate was obtained without meeting the legal and customary standards for a Hindu marriage.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Can a Hindu marriage be considered valid without the performance of the ceremonies mandated under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
2. Whether the issuance of a marriage certificate under Section 8 confer legitimacy on a marriage that has not been solemnized as per Hindu law?

ARGUMENT OF PLAINTIFF

1. The petitioner argued that the marriage was legally registered under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, and the Marriage Registrar had given a legitimate marriage certificate. The parties’ marriage is definitively attested by this certificate.
2. The petitioner argued that Once a marriage is registered under the Act, it is no longer essential to give proof of the performance of particular ceremonies because the registration serves the dual purposes of ensuring documentation and providing legal recognition.
3. The petitioner argued that Since the parties’ intention to get married was obvious, the lack of ornate rituals like saptapadi shouldn’t invalidate the marriage, which was solemnized with mutual consent and understanding.
4. The petitioner argued that the goals of the registration process, which are to give legal protection and avoid conflicts in matrimonial matters, especially to protect the rights of women, would be undermined if the marriage were declared illegal despite having been registered.
5. The petitioner argued that the court should not allow the respondent to deny the marriage after agreeing to its registration because it amounted to ill faith and an attempt to avoid his marital obligations. 
6. The petitioner argued that in order to prevent the abuse of legal technicalities and to provide justice and fairness for those who depend on the legal recognition of their marital status, public policy concerns require that registered marriages be upheld.
   

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDENT

1. The Respondent argued that The marriage was not legally solemnized in accordance with Hindu law since the necessary rituals outlined in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, such as saptapadi (the seven steps around the sacred fire), were not carried out.
2. The respondent argued that registration is merely a method of proof and not a replacement for solemnization, the issue of a marriage certificate under Section 8 does not grant validity to a marriage unless the necessary rituals have been conducted correctly.
3. The respondent argued that the marriage was invalid was further supported by the petitioner’s inability to produce any witnesses or proof that the required rites and rituals were performed.
4. The respondent argued that the maintainance of  the integrity and legal legitimacy of the union, the Hindu Marriage Act mandates adherence to customs; a marriage cannot be deemed lawful if the parties simply agree without carrying out the rituals.
5. The respondent argued that a risky precedent would be created if the petitioner’s claim were accepted based just on the marriage certificate, enabling parties to abuse registration to assert marital status without meeting legal standards.
6. The respondent argued that  allowing unceremonial unions to continue could result in widespread abuse of marriage registration regulations, it was imperative to invalidate the claim in order to preserve the integrity of the legal system governing Hindu marriages.

PRINCIPAL APPLIED

This case focused attention on the laws governing the solemnization and registration of Hindu weddings, particularly Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. The Court upheld the fundamental rule that a Hindu marriage must adhere to the necessary rituals and practices specified in Section 7 in order to be accepted by the law. Among them, many Hindu traditions place a crucial emphasis on performing saptapadi, or the seven circumambulations around the sacred fire. The Court underlined that as these procedures are integral to the solemnization of a marriage under Hindu law, their absence invalidates the union. The Court also made it clearer how the Act distinguishes between the substantive and procedural parts of marriage. Section 8, which deals with marriage registration, provides a means of proving, recording, and publicly recognizing a marriage. The Court emphasized, however, that this type of registration is only evidence and cannot by itself certify a marriage that has not been consummated in accordance with the necessary traditions and ceremonies. The ruling made clear that adherence to the fundamental legal and customary conditions for a lawful marriage is still necessary, even if a marriage certificate has evidentiary weight. By drawing this difference, the Court upheld the fundamental idea that ancient ceremonies must be honored for their sacredness and that following the rules is essential to a Hindu marriage’s legal validity. The ruling also emphasized the value of the legal framework established by Section 8, which permits marriages to be formally recorded without compromising the substantive legitimacy granted by the performance of necessary rites. While preserving legal consistency and clarity, this harmony between custom and regulatory supervision guarantees the preservation of Hindu weddings’ spiritual and cultural value.

JUDGEMENT

Due to the lack of the necessary rites and rituals for its solemnization, the Court determined that the marriage between the parties was unlawful under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It emphasized the crucial function of Section 7 of the Act, which, based on community customs, provides necessary rites like saptapadi (seven steps around the holy fire) and other customs. The Court emphasized that a Hindu marriage cannot be deemed lawful if these rites are not followed, which is a substantial requirement. Additionally, the Court clarified the purpose and implementation of Section 8 of the Act, which addresses marriage registration. It emphasized that registration is only a formality meant to document and validate a legally existing marriage. However, it does not confer legitimacy upon a marriage that has not been duly solemnized. The verdict made it clear that a marriage certificate issued under Section 8 cannot be regarded as definitive proof of a legitimate marriage unless there is evidence that the required ceremonies and rituals were performed. Rejecting the petitioner’s request for the marriage to be recognized as lawful, the Court reiterated how crucial it is for a Hindu marriage to adhere to both legal and customary standards. This ruling upholds the distinction between the evidentiary function of registration, which only helps to codify and document a lawful marriage, and the substantive necessity of solemnization, which is based on tradition and mandated by law. By doing thus, the decision establishes a significant precedent for how Hindu law interprets marriage regulations, highlighting the need to complete both statutory and ceremonial requirements in order to obtain legal recognition.

ANALYSIS

We  observe that Hindu marriage is a ceremonial and has a religious aspect. After completing the seventh stage, or saptapadi, in a Hindu marriage, the husband reportedly informs his bride, “With seven steps we have become friends (sakha),” according to the Rig Veda. I hope I may stay in your company and become friends with you. Women are valued as co-equal partners in marriages and have their own identities, despite the fact that they are viewed as half of themselves (ardhangini). In a marriage, both spouses are equal partners; there is no such thing as a “better-half.” As was already established, Hindu law views marriage as a sacrament, or samskara. The foundation of a new family is it. Monogamy is the only kind of marriage that is legally allowed between a husband and wife since the Act was passed and centuries have gone by. The Act specifically forbids all such relationships, including polyandry and polygamy. Additionally, a single kind of marriage with a range of rites, customs, and rituals is what the Parliament wants. Consequently, when the Act became operative on May 18, 1955, it clarified and amended the laws concerning Hindu marriage. The broad scope of the Act encompasses not only Hindus in general but also Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Lingayats, Brahmos, and Aryasamajists, all of whom are allowed to marry in a Hindu ceremony.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal case emphasizes how crucial it is to follow the legal and customary guidelines set forth in the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 while performing a Hindu marriage ceremony. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reiterated that a Hindu marriage cannot be considered lawful unless the fundamental rituals outlined in Section 7 of the Act—such as saptapadi, or seven walks around the holy fire—or other customary ceremonies unique to the partners are carried out. These ceremonies serve as the cornerstone of a Hindu marriage and are essential to the solemnization procedure. Additionally, the Court clarified how Section 8 of the Act—which deals with marriage registration—should be applied. By itself, it does not acknowledge a union that has not been legally solemnized in compliance with the necessary traditions and rites; rather, it clarifies that registration is only a formality employed to document and verify a marriage. The decision clarified that procedural evidence, such a marriage certificate, cannot take the place of substantive conformity to the Act’s requirements. The Court made certain that the Hindu Marriage Act is construed and used in accordance with its legislative objective by upholding the integrity of both statutory and customary marriage rituals. Additionally, the ruling upheld the integrity of Hindu marriage law by clearly distinguishing between the substantive legitimacy of a marriage and the evidentiary function of registration. This decision establishes a noteworthy precedent that fosters adherence to custom and the rule of law while offering uniformity and clarity in the way the Act handles marital conflicts.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/
2. https://strictlylegal.in/
3. https://www.scconline.com/

This article is written by Abhinav Jaju ;student of Lloyd law college ; Intern at Legal Vidhya.

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 personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.