Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed by a young couple seeking protection, the Division Bench of Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani, JJ., listed the matter while holding that it appeared that marriages were being solemnised in the Arya Samaj Mandir even without verifying the age of the persons concerned. Accordingly, the Court directed that until further orders, the Arya Samaj Mandir concerned shall not solemnise any marriage or issue any marriage certificate.
Background
On 20 July 2026, the petitioners (the couple), aged 19 years old, got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector H (Harsh Vihar Puraniya), Aliganj, Lucknow, and a marriage certificate was issued by the Head of the Mandir wherein the boy’s age was written as 22 years. The couple filed the present writ petition seeking protection of their lives and protection from harassment. They alleged that the local police was harassing them at the behest of Respondent 4. Furthermore, the police did not take any action on their concerns despite an application being made before the Commissioner of Police on 20 July 2026.
On the last date, the Court, vide order dated 24 July 2026, sought physical appearance of the Head of the Mandir to appear in person and demonstrate on what basis he solemnised the marriage of the couple and recorded the boy’s age as 22 years in the marriage certificate.
In compliance with the said direction, the Secretary of the Mandir appeared before the Court and informed that the Head of the Mandir was his 88-year-old father who was unable to move. He produced a register, in which details of the persons whose marriages have been solemnised in the Mandir have been mentioned. He also produced an affidavit given by the couple and the boy’s mother which stated that he was 22 years old.
Analysis
The Court noted that as per the boy’s Aadhaar Card, his date of birth was 1 January 2007. Furthermore, the Mandir Secretary admitted that no documentary proof of the boy’s age was produced before marriage. The Mandir Secretary claimed that the marriage was solemnised under Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, but he fairly conceded that the affidavits were not permissible under the said provision and the marriageable age of the male is 21 years as per the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The Court noted that the affidavits produced by the Mandir Secretary indicate that all the affidavits, even the affidavit of the boy’s mother, were on printed proformas. Therefore, it appeared that the proformas were prepared for affidavits of different kinds, so that the marriage could be solemnised in any case if the persons approach the Mandir. The affidavit also indicated that the stamp papers of the affidavits were purchased on 20 July 2026 at 7.49 p.m., 8.05 p.m., and 7.55 p.m., respectively. However, the couple, on a query, failed to indicate that the marriage was solemnised at night after the aforesaid time period.
Additionally, the Court noted that the register produced by the Mandir’s Secretary indicated that all the entries were prepared by a single pen and in the same handwriting. Regarding this, the Mandir Secretary stated that the register entries were made by an external person engaged by the Mandir.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that it appeared that marriages were being solemnised in the Arya Samaj Mandir even without verifying the age of the persons concerned to ascertain whether they were of marriageable age, and if the marriage of persons who are not of marriageable age was solemnised, everyone involved in the same had committed a crime.
The Court remarked that Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. One of the beliefs and principles of the Arya Samaj is that one should be ever ready to imbibe truth and forsake untruth. The other belief is that all human beings should abide by the rules concerning social benefit, besides other beliefs and principles. However, it appeared that some Arya Samaj Institutions were not following the aforesaid beliefs and principles, and the present case was also of the same kind.
Also Read: Allahabad HC directs probe into fake Arya Samaj Societies conducting illegal marriages
On the facts, the Court noted that the couple got married on the same date as the application addressed to the Commissioner of Police. The said application was sent by speed post on 21 July 2026 at 10.32 a.m. from the High Court Post Office, and the affidavit in support of the petition was sworn on the same date at 11.00 a.m. The application indicated that the allegations levelled in the present petition were not mentioned and only apprehension was expressed that the girl’s parents might implicate her husband and family members in a false case and get them arrested/jailed. The Court further noted that the State did not inform about any threat to the couple at this stage.
Thus, the Court held that it was apparent that the petition had been filed merely on apprehension without any threat or coercion from anybody. Even otherwise, in case of any threat or coercion from anybody, the couple could have approached the police station concerned and higher authorities, who were required to take appropriate action in terms of the Supreme Court judgment titled Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475.
Regarding the Mandir Secretary’s claim that such instances would not take place in the future, the Court stated that unless the Mandir files an undertaking on record regarding the norms which shall be followed for solemnising marriages by the Arya Samaj and that marriages shall not be solemnised without age verification of the parties, the Mandir could not be allowed to continue solemnising marriages.
Accordingly, the Court directed impleadment of the Arya Samaj Mandir and that until further orders, the Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector H (Harsh Vihar Puraniya), Aliganj, Lucknow, shall not solemnise any marriage or issue any marriage certificate.
The matter was listed for 31 August 2026.
[Neha v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 7309 of 2026, decided on 28-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioners: Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri, Vishnu Kant Awasthi
For the respondent: Government Advocate