Allahabad High Court: In a petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court, wherein the Court rejected the petitioner’s application for a waiver from submitting the marriage registration certificate, a Single Judge Bench of Manish Kumar Nigam, J., held that a Hindu marriage does not become invalid merely because it is not registered. Therefore, the Family Court cannot insist on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce petition.
The Court clarified that the petition for divorce had been filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act, 1955’), seeking divorce by mutual consent. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the fact of the marriage, as both parties had admitted it. The Court found the insistence of the Family Court for the filing of the marriage registration certificate, based on Sub-rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956 (‘Rules, 1956’), to be unnecessary and unwarranted. The Court emphasised that such a requirement applied only when the marriage had been registered under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was not the case here.
Background
The husband-petitioner and the defendant-wife filed an application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent on 23-10-2024. During the pendency of the petition, the Family Court, by order dated 04-07-2025, fixed 29-07-2025 as the deadline for submitting the marriage certificate.
In response, the petitioner filed an application, requesting exemption from submitting the marriage registration certificate, stating that the certificate was not available with either party and that there was no compulsory requirement for marriage registration under the Act, 1955. The petitioner sought to be exempted from this requirement. Notably, the opposite party supported the petitioner’s request.
However, by order dated 31-07-2025, the court below rejected the petitioner’s application. The rejection was based on the ground that, according to Rule 3(a) of the Rules, 1956 it is mandatory for a marriage certificate to be annexed to every proceeding under the Act, 1955. The Court emphasized that despite the lack of objection from the opposite party, the submission of the marriage certificate remained mandatory as per Rule 3(a) of the Rules, 1956. Therefore, the petitioner’s application for exemption was denied.
As a result, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Family Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that since there was no objection from the opposite party to the application filed by the petitioner, and the petition arose out of proceedings under Section 13(B) of the Act, 1955, it was disposed of at the admission stage itself. The Court decided not to issue notice to the opposite party, as there were no factual disputes in the petition.
The Court took note of and considered the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, 1955, and observed that there was no requirement for the registration of a Hindu marriage prior to the commencement of the Act. The Court noted that, in general, Hindus do not typically register their marriages, unlike processes such as adoption, property transfer, or partition. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not itself contain any provisions for marriage registration; instead, it empowers the State Government to make such rules.
In this context, the Court referred to the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, which were promulgated by the State Government under the powers conferred by Article 154 read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2017, mandates that after the commencement of the Rules, any marriage solemnized where one of the parties is a permanent resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh or where the marriage took place within the State must be registered.
However, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 further clarifies that marriages not previously registered may be registered after the commencement of these Rules, following the procedure outlined in Rule 7 of the Rules, 2017. The Court emphasised that a marriage solemnized before or after the commencement of these Rules will not be deemed invalid simply due to the lack of registration.
The Court explained that when a Hindu marriage is solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1955, Section 8(1) of the Act empowers State Governments to create rules for the registration of such marriages. These rules are intended to facilitate the keeping of a Hindu Marriage Register, wherein the parties may record the details of their marriage in a prescribed manner and subject to certain conditions. The primary purpose of registration, as outlined, is to provide convenient evidence of the marriage.
Section 8(4) of the Act stipulates that entries in the Hindu Marriage Register will be admissible as evidence. Section 8(2) allows the State Government to make registration of Hindu marriages compulsory if deemed necessary. However, the Court clarified that the failure to register a marriage would not affect its validity. Moreover, Section 8(5) further affirms that the omission to make an entry in the marriage register, as prescribed by the Act, does not invalidate the marriage. Therefore, even if the State Government enacts rules requiring compulsory marriage registration, there cannot be a rule declaring a marriage invalid due to non-registration. The Court also pointed out that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, explicitly provides that non-registration will not invalidate the marriage.
The Court reiterated that the marriage registration certificate serves solely as evidence to prove the marriage. It emphasised that the absence of a marriage registration certificate does not invalidate the marriage, in accordance with sub-Section 5 of Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This provision makes it clear that the omission to register the marriage does not affect its validity.
The Court stated that, in the present case, the petition for divorce had been filed under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a divorce by mutual consent. There was no dispute between the parties regarding the fact of the marriage, as both parties had admitted to it. The Court found the insistence of the Family Court for the filing of the marriage registration certificate, based on Sub-rule 3(a) of the Rules, 1956, to be unnecessary and unwarranted.
The Court further explained that Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1956, mandates that a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act shall be accompanied by a certified extract from the Hindu Marriage Register maintained under Section 8 of the Act, but only where the marriage has been registered. In the present case, the marriage solemnized in 2010 had not been registered, and thus, there was no necessity to file a registration certificate.
The Court noted that, in light of the laws established by the Supreme Court and the provisions of Sub-rule (a) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1956, the insistence by the Principal Judge of the Family Court for the submission of a marriage certificate was entirely unwarranted. Consequently, the Court ruled that the order passed by the court below was liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the order dated 31-07-2025 was set aside. Furthermore, considering that the petition for mutual divorce had been pending since 2024, the Court directed the Family Court to consider and decide the pending proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with the law. The judge was also instructed to provide an opportunity for hearing and allow the parties to lead evidence in support of their case, ensuring that unnecessary adjournments were not granted, provided there were no legal impediments, and to adhere to the statutory mandate of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
[Sunil Dubey v Minakshi, Matters under Article 227 No. 9347 OF 2025, decided on 26-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi
Buy Constitution of India HERE
