Delhi High Court: Marriage Cannot Be Declared Invalid for Non-Performance of Ceremonies Under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that a marriage cannot be declared invalid merely because it was not solemnised in accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court observed that the Act contains no provision allowing parties to seek a declaration that a marriage is void ab initio for want of ceremonies, as all its remedies apply only to marriages that have been duly solemnised. Dismissing an appeal by a couple seeking to nullify their Arya Samaj and registered marriage, the Bench upheld the Family Court’s order and clarified that such petitions are barred by law and the principle of estoppel.
The case arose from a joint petition filed before the Family Court, Saket, by both parties, who had married on January 30, 2024, at Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Bandhan Trust in Delhi. The marriage was later registered on February 2, 2024, with the Office of the District Magistrate, Shahdara. The couple contended that the statutory requirements under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) were not fulfilled since the Saptapadi (seven steps before the sacred fire) was not performed, rendering the marriage void ab initio. They also sought to invalidate the Arya Samaj and District Magistrate-issued certificates.
The parties claimed that their marriage was solemnized hurriedly to facilitate the wife’s visa process to the United Kingdom, where the husband resides. They asserted that no cohabitation took place, and the marriage was merely procedural. Later, after disputes arose, they agreed not to proceed with further ceremonies that had been planned for April 20, 2024, and moved the Family Court to declare the earlier Arya Samaj ceremony void.
The Family Court dismissed their joint petition on October 4, 2024, holding that such relief could only be sought under Section 11 of the HMA for marriages that are void on specific statutory grounds and not for alleged non-performance of rituals. Aggrieved, the parties filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the HMA, 1955, before the Delhi High Court.
The Division Bench recorded that “the HMA contains no provision that enables a party to seek a declaration that a marriage is invalid ab initio on the ground that it was never solemnised in accordance with Section 7 of the HMA.” It further stated that “all provisions in the HMA that deal with declarations, whether relating to a marriage being void, voidable, or grounds for divorce, are applicable only to those marriages that have been solemnised.”
The Court observed that “since the HMA does not provide for a remedy where the case set up is that no valid marriage ever came into existence owing to non-fulfilment of Section 7 requirements, the parties herein cannot invoke the jurisdiction of courts under the HMA to seek such relief.” It noted that “such a Petition was not even maintainable before the learned Family Court.”
On Section 11 of the Act, the Bench recorded that “the relief sought in the present case does not fall within its ambit” and that “Section 11 empowers a court to grant a decree of nullity only where a marriage, though duly solemnised, is in contravention of the essential conditions prescribed under Clauses (i), (iv), or (v) of Section 5 of the HMA.”
Discussing estoppel, the judges stated that “both parties had themselves submitted sworn affidavits before the competent authority, making unequivocal admissions that their marriage had been solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies.” It was recorded that “on the basis of these averments and materials, a marriage certificate was duly issued in their favour by the competent authority,” and “any prayer now seeking a declaration that such a marriage, as well as the marriage certificates obtained on the basis of the documents voluntarily executed, is squarely barred by the doctrine of estoppel embodied in Section 121 of the BSA.”
The Bench stated that “courts are ordinarily reluctant to entertain petitions where ingenious or clever drafting is employed as a device to circumvent statutory provisions or to secure a relief that is otherwise not available in law.” It further observed that “the provisions of the HMA, particularly those concerning declarations of nullity, voidable marriages, divorce, and judicial separation, must be strictly construed and applied.”
Finally, the Court recorded that “the petition and now appeal before us, which seeks to carve out a remedy wholly outside the statutory framework, though ingenious, is not only legally untenable but also depreciable.”
It stated, "In light of the facts, circumstances, and settled principles of law, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed." The Court further observed that both the Family Court petition and the appeal represented "a complete misadventure and a misguided attempt to turn the settled law on its head."
We find no infirmity or error in the Impugned Judgment 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court. For the reasons already discussed, the present appeal is dismissed in its entirety." It also declared that the appeal and any pending applications stood disposed of with no order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and Mr. Ashok Kumar Nagrath, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Ms. Meghna Nair and Mr. Yashwant Singh Baghel, Advocates.
Amicus Curiae: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee with Ms. Anshika Sharma, Advocates.
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8888-DB
Case Number: MAT.APP. (F.C.) 222/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
