A Division Bench<\/strong> of Justice Anand Pathak <\/strong>and Justice Hirdesh<\/strong> set aside a Family Court judgment<\/strong> that had wrongly declared<\/strong> a woman<\/strong> as the legally wedded wife of a 75-year-old retired company commander.<\/strong> The High Court said the trial court had committed a serious error by treating the Arya Samaj certificate<\/strong> and register entry as conclusive proof of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court explained that under Hindu law, marriage is not just an event or celebration but a sacred union that must satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the judges observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “In Hindu religion, marriage is a sacrament and has a sacred character. Marriage is not an event for mere ‘song and dance’ or ‘wining and dining.’ Hindu marriage is conducted as per Vedic procedure, which includes customs and rites such as Kanyadana, Panigrahan, Saptapadi, and chanting of mantras while applying vermilion. Any Hindu marriage solemnized in accordance with Vedic procedure constitutes a valid marriage if it fulfills requirements of Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act. Hindu marriage facilitates procreation, consolidates unit of family, and strengthens spirit of fraternity within various communities.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Marriage is sacred in that it provides a lifelong, dignity-affirming, equal, consensual, and healthy union of two individuals, acknowledging both material and spiritual aspects of lives of married couple.”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Court\u2019s Key Observation on Missing Rituals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n When the Court examined the evidence, it found that no witness<\/strong> confirmed the performance of Saptapadi or any other essential ceremony. Even the photographs produced did not show sacred fire, pheras, or Saptapadi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court specifically noted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “On perusal of evidence of both parties as well as impugned record, it reveals that witnesses…of Arya Samaj, as well as respondent herself, never stated that Saptpadi or any other essential ceremony was performed. The photographs produced on behalf of respondent before the Trial Court do not depict any sacred fire, pheras, or Saptpadi. There is no evidence that both parties were followers of the Arya Samaj or that rituals prescribed under the Arya Marriage Validation Act were followed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Consequently, material on record fails to establish factum of valid ‘Hindu marriage’ as defined under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act…Therefore, it is found that the Trial Court erred in treating Arya Samaj certificate (Ex.D-3) and register entry (Ex.D-4) as conclusive proof of marriage. Essential ceremonies of Hindu marriage, particularly Saptpadi, were not proved”.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal<\/em><\/strong>, where the apex court explained the meaning of \u201csolemnised marriage\u201d and the mandatory nature of ceremonies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court had held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Section 7 of the Act speaks of the ceremonies of a Hindu marriage\u2026 Unless and until the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnised’\u2026 Where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies, such as Saptapadi when included, the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage\u2026 a mere issuance of a certificate\u2026 would neither confer any marital status upon the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law.”<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Facts of the Case: Allegations of Blackmail & Concealed Marriages<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The original plaintiff, late Brahmswaroop Sharma<\/strong>, was a 75-year-old widower. He published a matrimonial advertisement for his son, after which the respondent woman contacted him. He alleged that she took advantage of his loneliness, repeatedly visited his home, and eventually blackmailed him. He claimed she had multiple previous marriages and obtained a fabricated Arya Samaj marriage certificate<\/strong> dated 26 March 2012.<\/p>\n\n\n\n He also argued that she had disclosed another husband\u2019s name\u2014Ashok Sharma\u2014during her arrest in a criminal case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act<\/strong>. Furthermore, he claimed she had a pattern of keeping multiple husbands to gain money and pension benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The woman denied all allegations and insisted that the marriage was genuine. She argued that she had married the plaintiff legally through Arya Samaj and that the suit should be dismissed for lack of notice and proper pleadings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Family Court dismissed the suit and accepted her claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove invalidity of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n High Court: No Marriage in the Eyes of Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After reviewing all evidence and legal principles, the High Court held that no valid marriage ever took place<\/strong> because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench concluded that the Family Court\u2019s judgment suffered from \u201cmisreading of evidence\u201d and incorrect application of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Final Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court declared that the woman was not the legally wedded wife<\/strong> and that the Arya Samaj certificate dated 26 March 2012 did not prove any marriage<\/strong>. A permanent injunction was also granted, preventing her from claiming any marital rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
![\"Madhya](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Madhya-Pradesh-High-Court-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> What It Says (Simple Explanation)<\/strong><\/td> Relevance in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 7 \u2013 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Hindu marriage must be solemnised<\/em> with proper customary rites<\/strong>. If Saptapadi is part of custom, the marriage becomes valid only when the 7th step<\/strong> is taken around the sacred fire.<\/td> Court held that no Saptapadi, no sacred fire, no pheras<\/strong> were proved. Therefore, no valid Hindu marriage<\/strong> took place.<\/td><\/tr> Section 5 \u2013 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Lists conditions for a valid Hindu marriage, including that neither party should have a living spouse<\/strong> at the time of marriage.<\/td> Respondent allegedly had earlier marriages (Ashok Sharma \/ Aashiq Kalbhor). If true, then any later marriage is void<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr> Section 8 \u2013 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Registration of marriage is allowed for documentation but does not itself create a valid marriage<\/strong>.<\/td> Arya Samaj certificates (Ex-D3, D4) cannot prove marriage<\/strong> without actual rituals.<\/td><\/tr> Section 19 \u2013 Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Provides for appeals to the High Court from Family Court judgments.<\/td> Used by the appellant\u2019s son to file the present appeal.<\/td><\/tr> Section 80(2) \u2013 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)<\/strong><\/td> Certain suits against the government require notice before filing.<\/td> Respondent falsely argued suit not maintainable for lack of notice. Court did not accept this as grounds to validate marriage.<\/td><\/tr> Section 370(2) \u2013 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Relates to human trafficking<\/strong> and exploitation.<\/td> Respondent was arrested earlier; during arrest she gave the name \u201cAshok Sharma\u201d as her husband \u2014 used by appellant to show she had another spouse.<\/td><\/tr> Sections 4\u20138 \u2013 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act<\/strong><\/td> Offences related to trafficking, prostitution, running brothels, etc.<\/td> Respondent was charged earlier; documents mentioned another husband\u2019s name, supporting appellant\u2019s case that she concealed marriages.<\/td><\/tr> Article 142 \u2013 Constitution of India<\/a> (Referenced via Supreme Court case)<\/strong><\/td> Empowers Supreme Court to pass orders \u201cto do complete justice\u201d.<\/td> Quoted in the Dolly Rani case that clarified Saptapadi is mandatory<\/strong> if part of custom.<\/td><\/tr> SLP No. 15315\/2022 (Reference)<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court stayed certain observations regarding Arya Samaj institutions.<\/td> Respondent tried to rely on this, but High Court said rituals still must be proved<\/strong>, not assumed.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n