Sanchayita Lahkar

The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of  Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal dismissed an application seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that a marriage solemnized in an Arya Samaj Mandir, if performed according to Hindu customs and rites, is valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court observed that the place of solemnization is not relevant if the required customary ceremonies have been followed. The court further refused to interfere at the stage of proceedings based on disputed questions of fact concerning the validity of the marriage.

The applicant approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Bareilly, in Case No. 398/2024, arising out of Crime No. 517/2023 under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, Police Station Hafizganj, District Bareilly. The first informant, the wife of the applicant, alleged that she was harassed for dowry after her marriage to the applicant.

Also Read:Mere Suspicion Cannot Lead to Conviction’: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Reversing Acquittal Without Proof of Homicide, Frees Man in Wife’s Death Case

Counsel for the applicant contended that the alleged marriage was invalid as it was performed at Arya Samaj Mandir and the certificate issued was forged. He relied on the judgment in Ashish Morya Vs. Anamika Dhiman, First Appeal No. 830/2022, and the Supreme Court decision in Seema Vs. Ashwini Kumar, (2006) 2 SCC 578, to argue that the certificate issued by Arya Samaj lacks statutory force.

The applicant's counsel submitted that according to the Division Bench in Ashish Morya, mere issuance of a certificate by Arya Samaj is not proof of a valid marriage and does not hold evidentiary value. It was further argued that no marriage was actually performed and that the certificate is fabricated.

In response, the A.G.A. representing the State opposed the application and submitted that statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., including that of the Purohit who performed the marriage, clearly established that the marriage was conducted according to Hindu customs and rites. It was argued that the disputed facts regarding the validity of marriage could not be determined at this preliminary stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court proceeded to examine the requirements of a valid Hindu marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It recorded that under Section 7, a marriage is complete and binding when solemnized with customary rites and ceremonies of either party, including Saptapadi where applicable.

The court noted: "It is clear from Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act that customary rites and ceremonies may be solemnized at any place in a temple, house or open place."

It also examined the statutory framework for registration under Section 8 and the rules framed thereunder. Referring to Seema Vs. Ashwini Kumar, it reiterated that registration of marriage provides evidentiary value but does not confer validity unless the marriage itself is performed as per law.

The court elaborated on Arya Samaj traditions, stating:

"In Arya Samaj Mandir, marriage is conducted as per the vedic procedure, which includes Hindu customs and rites like Kanyadan, Panigrahan, Saptapadi and chanting of Mantras while applying vermilion."

It further observed: "Any marriage solemnized in Arya Samaj Mandir as per the Vedic procedure is valid marriage as it fulfils the requirements of Section-7 of the Hindu Marriage Act."

The court held that the key criterion for a valid Hindu marriage is the performance of customary rites and ceremonies, regardless of the place of solemnization. It drew upon precedents and statutory interpretation to determine the legal standing of Arya Samaj marriages.

Citing Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, (2025) 2 SCC 587, the court reiterated that:

"Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed, would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under the Hindu Law."

On the validity of Arya Samaj certificates, it stated:

"The certificate issued by Arya Samaj may not have a statutory force of prima facie validity of marriage. But the certificate issued by Arya Samaj regarding performance of marriage is not a waste paper, it can be proved by the Purohit (who performed the marriage) as per the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 during the trial of the case."

In relation to the allegations under Section 498-A IPC, the court referred to Aluri Venkata Ramana Vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao, SLP (Criminal) No. 9243/2024, and recorded:

"The core of the offence under Section 498 A IPC lies in the act of cruelty and does not purely revolve around the demand for dowry."

Also Read: “Cyclostyle, Mechanical and Beyond Imagination”: Calcutta High Court Quashes Contempt Proceedings Illegally Initiated by Trial Judge Despite Clear Stay Order

Accordingly, the court concluded that the factual matrix, including the performance of ceremonies, could not be adjudicated at the stage of quashing proceedings and required trial.

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court recorded:

"This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceeding; present application is dismissed accordingly."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Applicant: Bhanu Prakash Verma
For the Opposite Party/State: Raj Bahadur Verma (A.G.A.)

Case Title: Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation Number: 2025: AHC:50766

Case Number: Application U/S 482 No. 38746 of 2024

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

[Read/Download order]