The Allahabad High Court ruled that a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir or the Registrar of Hindu Marriages is insufficient on its own to establish a valid marriage between parties.

According to the court, the burden of proof lies with the party claiming the marriage to provide evidence or witnesses demonstrating that the essential rites and customs, including Saptapadi under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were duly performed.

The bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed,

“On performance of Saptapadi in a Hindu marriage, according to 'Rig Veda', after completing the seventh step (Saptapadi) the bridegroom says to his bride, "with seven steps we have become friends (sakha). May I attain to friendship with thee; may I not be separated from they friendship." Therefore, this ceremony is necessary unless of course it is proved that it is not the custom in a particular area.”

The appellant, who was a minor at the time, was brought to the respondent, who served as a 'Guru' providing religious teachings at his residence in Lucknow. Despite her father's skepticism, other family members placed their trust in the Guru. After his discourses, the Guru distributed a 'special prasad' to attendees, causing them to enter an altered state of consciousness.

It was alleged that the respondent summoned the appellant's mother and the appellant under the pretext of signing documents for what they believed was Gurupurnima. On August 5, 2009, when the appellant was just 18 years and 12 days old, the respondent contacted the appellant's father and informed him that he had married the appellant on July 5, 2009, and had the marriage registered on August 3, 2009. Subsequently, a police complaint was filed against the respondent under Sections 419, 420, and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Since the appellant never consented to the marriage, she filed a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking to declare the marriage void. In response, the respondent filed a suit under Section 9 of the Act, requesting restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court noted contradictions in the statements of various witnesses. The appellant's father, in his criminal complaint, stated that the appellant was taken to the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office for marriage. In contrast, the appellant herself claimed that she was coerced into signing papers after consuming the 'prasad'.

The Family Court observed that no medical examination was conducted to ascertain if the appellant felt any unusual effects after consuming the prasad. Additionally, it noted that both the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office were not isolated locations where the respondent could have forcefully orchestrated any actions.

The suit under Section 12 was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant and her mother failed to prove their absence from the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's Office, and as educated individuals, they were deemed aware of the documents they signed. In contrast, the Family Court decreed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, noting the respondent's willingness to accept the appellant as his wife.

Challenging the Family Court's order, the appellant's counsel argued that the marriage should be considered voidable due to fraudulent acts committed by the respondent during the marriage and its registration. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel countered that the appellant and her mother, being educated, would not have visited the Arya Samaj Temple and the Registrar's Office without freely giving their consent.

The Court ruled that a marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir alone does not establish that the marriage was conducted in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It further held that the respondent had not provided any witnesses or evidence to demonstrate that the marriage had indeed been performed as per Hindu rituals and customs.

The Court observed that neither in the application for restitution of conjugal rights nor in his response to the suit under Section 12, did the respondent plead that the marriage was solemnized according to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which mandates Hindu rites and customs including Saptapadi, where the bride and groom take seven steps around the sacred fire.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the certificate issued by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages relied solely on the certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, without indicating any performance of the marriage according to Hindu rites and customs. Therefore, the certificate could not be considered as evidence to declare a valid marriage between the parties.

Accordingly, the Court held that no marriage had taken place between the parties “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.” The suit for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.

Case Title: Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava [FIRST APPEAL No. - 239 of 2023]

Counsel for Appellant : Sunieta Ojha

Counsel for Respondent: Seema Kashyap