Certificate By Arya Samaj Mandir Does Not Prove Marriage If No Customary Rites & Ceremonies Were Performed: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere issuance of a certificate by Arya Samanj Mandir does not by itself prove marriage if it does not mention that customary rites and ceremonies were performed which are prerequisites for a valid Hindu marriage.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “Thus, the Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow does not by itself prove marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. None of the certificates mention about the ceremonies which were performed. Merely mentioning that marriage was performed as per vaidik rites itself does not prove marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant, especially as, document C-47 does not bear signature of the appellant or her mother. Document C-55/8 is a photocopy albeit attested by some Administrator of Arya Samaj Mandir, but, it also does not prove marriage for the reasons already given hereinabove…The marriage certificate allegedly issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages on 03.08.2009 also by itself does not prove the said marriage, as, it does not mention any customary rites and ceremonies having been performed which are prerequisites for a valid Hindu marriage.”
Advocate Sunieta Ojha appeared for the Appellant whereas Advocate Seema Kashyap appeared for the Respondent.
An appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) challenging the judgment passed by the lower court allowing the suit filed by the Respondent-husband under Section 9 of the HMA and dismissing the suit filed by the Appellant-wife under Section 12 of the HMA.
The Respondent-husband was, as alleged, a spiritual guru and used to hold religious discourses at his residence. The Appellant-wife while she was a minor used to go with her mother, mausi and maternal uncle, to the residence of the husband for such religious discourses including on the occasion of Gurupurnima or other special occasions. The family members of the Appellant-wife, except her father, were deeply under the influence of the Respondent-husband and used to refer to him as their Spiritual Guru.
On the occasion of Gurupurnima, the Respondent-husband called the mother of the Appellant-wife to sign certain papers on the pretext of enrolling them as members of his spiritual institution. Subsequently, the Respondent-husband called the father of the Appellant-wife to inform him that he had married the Appellant-wife at Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow and had got it registered with the Registrar of Marriages. This sent the entire family into a tizzy. They were all taken aback and felt cheated by the fraudulent act of the Respondent-husband, who, it appears, used the signed papers aforesaid to get a marriage registered, although, according to the appellant-wife, she had never married the Respondent-husband and had never given her consent for the same.
The Court perused the evidence on record and said, “Neither in the pleadings contained in the plaint filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 nor in the pleadings contained in his written statement filed in the suit of the appellant under Section 12 has he pleaded about any such customary rites and ceremonies which are required to be performed at a Hindu marriage as having been performed on 05.07.2009 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow so as to constitute a valid Hindu marriage between the appellant and the respondent. It has also not been pleaded that it was not the custom to perform such necessary rites and ceremonies including 'Saptapadi' etc…As already stated the priest who may have performed those ceremonies has not been produced in Court. No other person who may have participated in such marriage ceremony and may have the witnessed the customary rites and ceremonies being performed regarding the marriage of the appellant with the respondent has been produced before the Court in support of his case.”
The Court also reiterated that in the absence of any marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, a certificate issued in that regard by any entity is of no legal consequence. Further, any registration of a marriage, which has not at all taken place, under Section 8 of the Act and as per the rules made by the State Government would not be evidence of a Hindu marriage and does not confer the status of a husband and a wife to a couple.
Furthermore, the Court said that for a valid marriage under the Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue/controversy arises. Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law, the Court added.
Consequently, the Court held that no marriage has taken place between the appellant and respondent as per law and the marriage as alleged by the respondent based on the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow and the Certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of marriages, Lucknow etc., is a nullity, as, prerequisites of a valid marriage in the form of customary rites and ceremonies required for a Hindu marriage were never performed and the said certificates have no significance in the eyes of law and do not by themselves prove such marriage.
Hence, the Court set aside the judgment passed by the lower court.
Cause Title: XXXX v. YYYY (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:45639-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocates Sunieta Ojha, Ashish David Rao, Anurag Dixit and Shakti Kumar Verma.
Respondent: Advocates Seema Kashyap, Pradeep Kumar and Kapil Dev Chaubey.