Arya Samaj Marriage Certificate Without Proof Of Saptapadi Insufficient To Establish Valid Hindu Marriage : Madhya Pradesh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh has set aside a Family Court order that had recognised a woman as the legally wedded wife of a man, holding that the alleged marriage could not be treated as valid under the Hindu Marriage Act in the absence of proof of essential ceremonies such as sacred fire, pheras and saptapadi. The Bench found that the Family Court was incorrect in treating an Arya Samaj marriage certificate and corresponding register entry as conclusive evidence of a lawful Hindu marriage. Allowing the appeal filed through the original plaintiff’s legal heir, the Court declared that the respondent is not his legally wedded wife and restrained her from asserting marital rights or interfering in his personal life.
The appeal was filed by the legal representative of the original plaintiff challenging the Trial Court’s dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that the respondent was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased plaintiff and seeking a permanent injunction. The suit had originally been instituted by a 75-year-old widower who asserted that, after he published an advertisement in a newspaper, the respondent contacted him and later procured a forged Arya Samaj marriage certificate dated 26.03.2012.
The plaintiff alleged that the respondent concealed her earlier marriages and that she had been found to have disclosed the name “Ashok Sharma’’ as her husband during her arrest in connection with a criminal case, as also mentioned in the charge-sheet. He further stated that she had previously married Aashiq Kalbhor and that by giving false statements she obtained municipal registration of a marriage with him despite her former husband being alive at that time. He claimed she forged documents and photographs and pointed to a substantial age difference as indicating a preplanned conspiracy.
The respondent denied all allegations and contended that the suit was not maintainable and lacked particulars. She stated that she had never married Ashok Sharma, admitted her earlier marriage to Aashiq Kalbhor which was dissolved in 2008, and stated that she legally married the plaintiff on 26.03.2012. She claimed that the plaintiff himself acknowledged her as his wife before his department.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she was not his legally wedded wife and that documents produced by the respondent established the marriage. The appeal before the High Court questioned the validity of the alleged marriage, asserting absence of essential ceremonies required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Court recorded that the central issue was whether the alleged marriage satisfied Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It referred to the Supreme Court’s exposition in Dolly Rani, observing in italics: “The word ‘solemnised’ means to perform the marriage with ceremonies in proper form. Unless and until the marriage is performed with appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnised’.” It further quoted: “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… and a mere issuance of a certificate… would neither confer any marital status… nor establish a marriage under Hindu law.”
The Court examined the evidence of both sides and recorded: “witnesses Purohit Ravindra Kushwah and Pradhan of Arya Samaj, Ramprakash, as well as respondent herself, never stated that Saptpadi or any other essential ceremony was performed.” It further observed: “The photographs produced on behalf of respondent… do not depict any sacred fire, pheras, or Saptapadi.” The Bench noted absence of any evidence showing that the parties were followers of Arya Samaj rituals or that ceremonies under the Arya Marriage Validation Act were followed. Therefore, it stated: “material on record fails to establish factum of valid ‘Hindu marriage’ as defined under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
The Court held that the Trial Court committed an error by treating the Arya Samaj certificate and municipal register entry as conclusive proof. It recorded: “Essential ceremonies of Hindu marriage, particularly Saptapadi, were not proved.” It concluded that, in such circumstances, applying the ratio of Dolly Rani, “mere issuance of Arya Samaj certificate cannot confer status of husband and wife.” As a result, the Trial Court’s judgment suffered from misreading of evidence and incorrect application of law.
The Court issued the final directions, stating: “the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2024 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior… is set aside.”
“The suit filed by original plaintiff (through his legal representative) is decreed with observations that respondent is not legally-wedded wife of late ………” The Court clarified: “The alleged Arya Samaj certificate dated 26.03.2012 and corresponding registration entry do not establish any valid marriage.”
“Decree of permanent injunction is granted, restraining respondent from interfering in personal life of plaintiff (represented by his legal heir) or claiming any marital rights against him. Accordingly, the instant first appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Shri Harish Dixit, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Parth Dixit, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Shrivastava, Advocate
Case Title: Brahmswaroop Sharma (Dead) through LR Ashwini Kumar v. Smt. Kiran Sharma
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-GWL:30821
Case Number: First Appeal No. 1998 of 2024
Bench: Justice Anand Pathak; Justice Hirdesh
