The Allahabad High Court has stated that, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, the ritual of Kanyadan is not obligatory for the formalization of a Hindu marriage.

The Court was primarily addressing a revision plea submitted by Ashutosh Yadav, contesting an order from the Additional Sessions Judge in Lucknow.

This order had dismissed a request made by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to recall two prosecution witnesses during a trial.

In front of the High Court, the legal representative for the petitioner argued that there existed certain inconsistencies between the testimony provided by Prosecution Witness 1 (P.W.-1) during her initial examination and her subsequent cross-examination. These discrepancies, it was contended, could only be resolved through the re-examination of P.W.-1 and her father, who is Prosecution Witness 2 (P.W.-2).

In the challenged order, the trial court acknowledged the argument put forth by the petitioner that the marriage certificate submitted by the prosecution indicates the marriage was conducted in February 2015 according to Hindu customs, wherein Kanyadan is deemed an integral ritual. The petitioner's position was that to verify this assertion, it is imperative to re-examine P.W.-2.

Considering the context provided by these facts and circumstances, the High Court initially recognized that under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the court holds the authority to summon any witness if their testimony is deemed crucial for reaching a fair and just verdict in the case.

Nevertheless, upon deeper reflection, the High Court noted that the petitioner's request to re-examine P.W.-1 and her father stemmed from observed disparities between P.W.-1's testimony during her primary examination and her subsequent cross-examination. However, the Court elucidated that these inconsistencies, in and of themselves, do not justify the recall of witnesses or the summoning of additional witnesses.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner aimed to re-examine these witnesses to ascertain whether the Kanyadan ceremony had indeed taken place. In addressing this issue, the Court referenced Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which delineates the essential ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.

As a result, the Court reached the conclusion that re-examining the prosecution witnesses regarding the execution of the Kanyadan ritual was not essential for rendering a fair decision in the case. Consequently, the Court held that witnesses cannot be summoned under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to establish this particular fact.

Consequently, recognizing that the fact sought to be proven through the recall of witnesses is not pertinent for reaching a just decision in the case, the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling and rejected the revision plea.

Case title - Ashutosh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 296 of 2024