Allahabad High Court: In an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 challenging the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, wherein the Court found that, although, there is a difference of 20 years in the age of the appellant and respondent, but, the presence of the appellant at the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar’s Office is proved and she had failed to prove that the marriage was solemnized by fraud or deceit by the respondent, the division bench of Rajan Roy and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment, 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 and the Certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of marriages 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.
Background:
The wife and her family were residents of Kanpur. The appellant’s Aunt (‘Mausi’) used to reside at Lucknow. Through her Aunt’s, the family members of the appellant, except her father, came in touch with the respondent, who, as alleged, was a religious Guru and used to hold religious discourses at his residence, at Lucknow. The wife, while she was a minor used to go with her mother, Aunt and maternal uncle, to the residence of respondent for such religious discourses. The family members of the appellant, except her father, were deeply under the influence of the respondent and used to refer to him as their Spiritual Guru. During ceremonies at the respondent’s place, certain ‘prasad’ including ‘special prasad’ was given and, on taking the same, the disciples used to feel elevated and lose normal consciousness.
On the day of Guru Purnima, the respondent called the mother of the appellant for signing certain papers on the pretext of enrolling them as members of his spiritual institution, accordingly, the appellant and her mother visited his place at Lucknow and signed certain papers. It is alleged that they were again called by the respondent at his place and made to sign certain papers on the pretext of being witnesses to a sale deed and they signed certain documents.
On 05-08-2009, the respondent called the appellant’s father to tell him that he married the appellant at Arya Samaj Mandir and got it registered with the Registrar of Marriages. An FIR. was lodged by the father of the appellant for offences under Sections 419, 420, 496 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’)
Issues:
(1) Whether any marriage was solemnized between the appellant and respondent as per Hindu rites and customs and in terms of Section 7 of the Act, 1955 or not?
(2) Whether such marriage was solemnized with the consent and free will of the appellant or fraudulently. If not, are the consequences and relief to which the appellant may be entitled under Section 12 of the Act, 1955?
(3) If the answer to the aforesaid questions is also in the affirmative, then, the other point for determination would be as to whether the appellant has/had any reasonable cause to withdraw from the Society of the respondent. If not, then, the relief to which the respondent would be entitled in his Suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955?
Analysis and Decision:
The Court remarked that “the Trial Court has missed the woods for the trees”. Further, the Court said that the appellant has nowhere admitted marriage with the respondent. The allegation of fraud in respect of the marriage being claimed by the respondent is on account of certain papers signed by the respondent, and the same being used for preparation of relevant certificates etc. to show that marriage had taken place between them, but this cannot constitute admission of any relationship of husband and wife between them. She has nowhere admitted that any such marriage had taken place in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, nor has she admitted performance of any such ceremonies which were necessary for a valid Hindu marriage.
After examining the testimony of the appellant, the Court found no admission of such marriage or the ceremonies which are necessary for solemnization of such marriage as per Hindu rites and customs to constitute a valid marriage as per law. The Court said that as it is the respondent who claims marriage with the appellant, the burden to prove such marriage as per Hindu rites and customs was upon him.
The Court noted that the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir does not bear the signature of the appellant or her family members. The said document has been denied by the appellant. In any case, such certificate by itself does not prove a valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs. Further, concerning the issuance of such certificates by the Arya Samaj Mandir, the Courts have held in several cases, that such certificates have no meaning unless and until prerequisites for a valid Hindu marriage are completed/satisfied and proved.
The Court also said that the priest who may have performed the ceremonies has not been produced in Court. No other person who may have participated in the marriage ceremony of the appellant with the respondent has been produced before the Court in support of his case.
After taking note of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal1, 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 arise. 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 said that mentioning that marriage was performed as per Vaidik rites does not prove marriage between the appellant and respondent, especially as document does not bear signature of the appellant or her mother. The said Document was a photocopy attested by some Administrator of Arya Samaj Mandir, but it also does not prove marriage.
The Court opined that marriage between the appellant and respondent as per Hindu rites and customs in terms of Section 7 of the Act, 1955 itself is not proved and the Trial Court has gravely erred in not considering this aspect of the matter which was implicit in the issues framed by it. In the absence of a valid Hindu marriage there was no way that the suit of the respondent under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 could have been decreed, especially, in the way it has been done, without discussing any of the prerequisites which are required to be satisfied under the said provision. For the same reason, the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit of the appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955
Thus, 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 and the Certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of marriages 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.
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned judgment.
[Shruti Agnihotri v Anand Kumar Srivastava, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3701, decided on 05-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Appellant :– Advocate Ashish David Rao, Advocate Anurag Dixit, Advocate Shakti Kumar Verma, Advocate Sunieta Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- Advocate Pradeep Kumar, Advocate Kapil Dev Chaubey, Advocate Seema Kashyap
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Transfer Petition (C) No(S). 2043/2023
