Patna High Court: In a miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, whereby the alleged marriage between the appellant and respondent was held not to have been solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals, the Division Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh*, JJ., held that the appellant had failed to prove the factum of her marriage with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals. The Court observed that, in the absence of any clinching evidence establishing the existence of a valid matrimonial relationship between the parties, the appellant had not made out a case for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.
The Court further held that Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Hindu Marriage Act), requires the requisite ceremonies for solemnisation of a Hindu marriage to be performed in accordance with the applicable customs and usage and that, where such rites and ceremonies include saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. The Court accordingly answered all the legal issues in the negative and dismissed the appeal.
Background
The dispute arose from a miscellaneous appeal against the judgment and order dated 26 February 2020 and decree dated 18 March 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was allowed and it was declared that the appellant was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that there was no relationship between the parties as husband and wife.
The appellant had admittedly been married to the elder brother of the respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals on 22 May 1990. Out of the said wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. Her first husband died on 28 November 1997. The appellant claimed that after the death of her first husband, she was married to his younger brother, the respondent, in 2002, with the consent of both the families and in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals.
The appellant further claimed that immediately thereafter she was subjected to torture at the hands of her in-laws and was compelled by the circumstances to file a maintenance case before the Family Court. The maintenance case was allowed and maintenance of ₹1000 per month was granted in her favour. The respondent challenged the order before the Court, but the civil revision was rejected on 18 January 2007.
Thereafter, the respondent instituted a title suit seeking a declaration that there was no marriage between the parties and that the appellant was not his legally wedded wife. The Family Court, after considering the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced by both sides, allowed the suit and held that the alleged marriage had not been solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals.
The appellant contended that after the death of her first husband, she was married to the respondent due to pressure of the elders in the family from both sides and that the marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals. It was submitted that the Principal Judge had failed to properly appreciate the evidence brought on record and that non-appreciation of the evidence in a proper manner had led to miscarriage of justice by declaring a valid marriage between the parties as null and void after many years of marriage. The appellant also relied upon the voter-list entries to substantiate her claim of being the legally wedded wife of the respondent.
The respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that the Principal Judge had properly appreciated the evidence and documents and that the appellant had miserably failed to prove solemnisation of a legally valid marriage. It was contended that in the absence of proof with respect to a legally valid marriage, the Family Court had no other option but to declare the so-called marriage between the parties as no marriage and to hold that there was no relationship between them like husband and wife.
Analysis
The Court first noted that the legal nodus for adjudication were whether the appellant was the legally wedded wife of the respondent, whether the marriage between the parties was solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals and whether there were evidence and materials available on record to establish the factum of legally valid marriage between the parties.
The Court observed that the marriage of the appellant with the elder brother of the respondent was admittedly solemnised in accordance with the Hindu religious rites and rituals on 22 May 1990 and that the first husband died in the year 1997, leaving behind the appellant with 2 children. The Court noted that the appellant claimed that she was legally married to the respondent after the death of her husband due to pressure of the elders in the family from both the sides but the respondent denied having solemnised any marriage with her.
The Court accordingly held that in the wake of such denial by the respondent, the onus squarely lies on the appellant to prove her marriage with the respondent in order to claim the status of being a legally wedded wife and other relief(s) available to her on account of her being a legally wedded wife.
The Court examined the deposition of the appellant and observed that she did not disclose the date, place and year of her marriage with the respondent. The Court emphasised that none of the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of the appellant had stated when her marriage with the respondent was solemnised and whether the marriage was performed in their presence. The Court further observed that the witnesses had not stated about saptapadi and sindurdaan, which were essentials of a Hindu marriage nor had the appellant claimed these ceremonies in her written statement.
The Court highlighted the material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses with respect to the name of the priest who performed the alleged second marriage. One witness named the priest as one person, whereas another witness disclosed the name of a different priest. The Court observed that it was a totally contradictory statement, which is unworthy of being given any credence to.
The Court further observed that requisite ceremonies for the solemnisation of the Hindu marriage must be in accordance with the applicable customs and usage and where saptapadi has been adopted, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. It was held that whenever a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies, such a marriage will not be construed under Hindu marriage.
The Court accordingly observed that for a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue or controversy arise. It was further held that unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587 wherein it was held that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament and has a sacred character.
The Court thereafter considered the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the appellant. It was observed that the orders of maintenance passed by the Family Court could not establish the validity of the alleged marriage because the maintenance proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was a proceeding in which the court simply decided the issue of maintenance for the purposes of maintaining the so-called estranged wife and never decides the issue of validity of marriage.
The Court also considered the certified copies of the voter-list produced on behalf of the appellant. It was noted that in the voter-list of the year 2004, the appellant was shown to be the wife of the respondent, whereas in the voter-list of the year 2009, the appellant had been shown as the wife of her first husband. The Court observed that one voter-list is at variance with another one. However, the Court emphasised that merely on the basis of names/entries made in the voter-list, one cannot claim validity with respect to solemnisation of marriage between the parties. It was observed that entries made in the voter-list are not a conclusive proof with respect to any kind of valid or subsisting marriage.
On the other hand, the Court examined the documents produced on behalf of the respondent and observed that they were the corroborative piece of evidence, which, unflinchingly and indisputably, shows the relationship between the appellant and her first husband as husband and wife. The Court observed that these documents proved that the appellant was the legally wedded wife of her first husband, who died in the year 1997 and that thereafter no other documents had been brought on record to substantiate and support the claim of the appellant.
The Court noted that in the present case no marriage registration certificate had been produced and that, more importantly, no proof had been coming forward which could be of any help to the appellant in establishing that the alleged marriage had been performed in consonance with the provisions with respect to the ceremonies and customs mandated under Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court held that the appellant had not been able to prove the factum of her marriage with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rights and rituals. The Court observed that in absence of any clinching evidence, which could prove the existence of a valid matrimonial relationship between the 2, the appellant had not made out a case for interfering with the judgment and order and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court.
Decision
Consequently, the Court answered the legal issues in the negative. The Court held that the appellant had not been able to prove the factum of her marriage with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu religious rights and rituals and that, in absence of any clinching evidence proving the existence of a valid matrimonial relationship, there was no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court.
The Court, thus, dismissed the miscellaneous appeal. It was further directed that there shall be no order as to cost and the interlocutory application(s), if any, also stood disposed of accordingly.
[X v. Y, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 316 of 2021, decided on 5-8-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rana Vikram Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Bijay Shankar Choubey, Adv., Bijay Prakash Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Vijay Kumar Mishra, Adv.
