Massive Marriage Fraud Unearthed In Uttar Pradesh | Allahabad High Court Orders Sweeping Reforms To Curb Fake Marriages And Protect Minors
Isabella Mariam
The Allahabad High Court Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar held that marriage certificates issued by fictitious or unauthorised societies cannot be treated as reliable evidence for granting legal protection. Disposing of a batch of 124 connected writ petitions, the Court directed the Inspector General, Stamp and Registration, Uttar Pradesh, to investigate the disproportionately high number of marriage registrations in Ghaziabad and recommend measures to prevent systemic misuse. The Court also instructed the District Magistrates of Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and Prayagraj, along with their respective marriage registration and law enforcement authorities, to conduct detailed inquiries into the activities of institutions involved in solemnising and registering marriages. Comprehensive verification of identity documents, marriage records, and the legal standing of issuing bodies was ordered to address the increasing trend of fraudulent petitions, many involving forged documentation and underage marriages.
The matter arose from a series of writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court by individuals seeking police protection on the grounds of having entered into matrimonial or live-in relationships allegedly against the wishes of their respective families. The primary relief sought by the petitioners was a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police in various districts, including Etawah, to ensure their safety. The petitions were supported by marriage certificates issued by Arya Samaj organizations and accompanied by Aadhaar cards and affidavits affirming the majority age of the individuals.
The petitioners claimed to have solemnized marriages in locations such as Greater Noida, Ghaziabad, and Prayagraj, with certificates issued by Arya Samaj Mandirs or affiliated societies. They asserted that threats to their lives arose from their families’ opposition to these unions, which were either inter-caste or conducted without parental consent. The documents annexed with the petitions typically included photocopies of Aadhaar cards, alleged marriage certificates, and postal receipts showing that complaints had been sent to local police authorities through registered post. Most complaints were sent from the High Court campus post office.
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State consistently challenged the authenticity of the documents submitted by the petitioners, particularly the marriage certificates. He contended that the certificates were often devoid of necessary details such as the identity of the officiating priest, the registered address of the Arya Samaj institution, and names or addresses of witnesses. It was further submitted that many of the Arya Samaj societies that issued such certificates were either unregistered or non-existent.
In response to the growing number of similar petitions, the Court noted that these matters followed a common pattern. Petitioners frequently alleged that their marriages had been solemnised at Arya Samaj Mandirs located in Gautam Buddha Nagar or Ghaziabad, regardless of their own place of residence. Subsequently, these marriages were registered with the local Deputy Registrar's office in Ghaziabad. The petitioners would then approach the Court citing apprehension of danger and request legal protection, usually without having personally approached local police stations.
A statistical report submitted by the Inspector General, Stamp and Registration, Uttar Pradesh, indicated a marked anomaly. Between 1 August 2023 and 1 August 2024, Ghaziabad alone recorded 29,022 registered marriages, while other populous districts such as Lucknow and Agra registered 8,001 and 3,630 marriages respectively. In contrast, numerous districts reported fewer than 500 marriages in the same period. These figures prompted judicial concern regarding the disproportionate registration volume concentrated in Ghaziabad and Gautam Buddha Nagar.
The Court recorded that 19,047 marriages in Ghaziabad had been registered by the Deputy Registrar Sadar-V, followed by 5,177 by Sadar-III, and lesser numbers by other sub-divisional registrars. Upon scrutiny, it was revealed that in a significant portion of these cases, both individuals had no local connection to Ghaziabad and were residents of eastern Uttar Pradesh. The Court noted that the only apparent purpose of registering marriages in Ghaziabad was to obtain certificates from institutions that would not subject the union to detailed legal scrutiny.
Multiple affidavits and verification reports submitted during the proceedings revealed widespread forgery. In nearly 25% of cases, petitioners ceased to appear after initial filings. In several others, counsel sought repeated adjournments. Verification reports found many Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and school certificates to be false. Moreover, the Arya Samaj societies named as issuing authorities denied having solemnised the stated marriages. Fictitious names were used for witnesses, and some institutions lacked valid registration under the Societies Registration Act.
In some cases, female petitioners were found to be minors aged between 14 and 16 years. The presence of such minors in matrimonial petitions raised further legal concerns under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. The Court observed that some male petitioners were already married and had used false certificates and manipulated photographs to file fresh petitions for protection.
As a result of growing irregularities, the Court created a separate case category titled “Writ-C (Couple Protection)” and began consolidating such petitions for collective hearings. Investigations by the police in Ghaziabad and Prayagraj resulted in the registration of multiple First Information Reports under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against individuals and organizations allegedly involved in issuing fake certificates.
One such investigation led to the arrest of two individuals at a photocopy shop near the High Court in Prayagraj. Computers seized from the location contained editable proformas of marriage certificates from various Arya Samaj societies, complete with fake seals and signatures. Police also seized printers, CPUs, and other equipment used to create forged documents. Separate FIRs were also registered against other individuals and societies in both Ghaziabad and Prayagraj.
District Magistrates of Ghaziabad, Gautam Buddha Nagar, and Prayagraj were directed to constitute special teams including Assistant Commissioners of Police, Assistant Registrars of Societies, and Marriage Registration Officers. These teams were tasked with visiting societies and institutions claiming to solemnize marriages and verifying their legal status and procedures. Instructions were also given to verify the authenticity of the priests conducting these ceremonies and to assess the legal framework under which such institutions operated.
During the pendency of these petitions, multiple reports and affidavits were filed by state authorities, including the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, and the Inspector General, Stamp and Registration. Their findings confirmed systemic misuse of legal provisions, manipulation of statutory documents, and operation of sham institutions with the purpose of creating documents for court proceedings.
The Court accepted that while some petitions involved genuine couples seeking protection, the volume and pattern of filings demonstrated a deliberate misuse of legal processes. Many such petitions were facilitated by intermediaries, including touts operating around the High Court campus.
The Court began by recording that it had observed a recurring trend in the filing of petitions seeking police protection based on alleged solemnisation of marriages. It stated: “Since the issues involved in the present writ petition are similar to those raised in 124 connected petitions, all the petitions are being heard and decided together by a common order.”
The Court took cognizance of the serious concerns raised by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel regarding the authenticity of marriage certificates submitted. It noted: “He has drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate, purportedly issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Greater Noida, which lacks essential details such as the name of the priest who has solemnized the marriage, the registered address of the Arya Samaj Mandir, names, addresses, and contact details of the witnesses.”
Regarding the procedural irregularity, the Court recorded: “It is evident that they did not appear in person before the local police authorities. On this ground, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable at the threshold and is liable to be dismissed in limine.”
The Court remarked on the proliferation of such cases: “This is not the first instance where the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised such serious objections, questioning both the maintainability and the merits of the petition.” It further noted: “Several such petitions have been filed with fabricated marriage certificates and forged Aadhar Cards.”
The Court outlined the modus operandi commonly observed: “Petitioners who are presently residing at Ahmedabad claim to have solemnized marriage in Maharashtra in a temple, yet register the marriage in Ghaziabad, and thereafter approach this Court seeking protection.”
The pattern prompted the Court to record: “In many such cases, the marriage certificates are issued by societies purportedly located in (a) Ghaziabad, (b) Gautam Buddha Nagar, and (c) Prayagraj. Upon verification, it has been revealed that in several instances, the societies in question do not exist.”
On the issue of age verification and fraud, the Court stated: “Many female petitioners have been found to be minors, ranging from 14 to 16 years of age. In several cases, it has also come to notice that the male petitioners entered into these alliances without disclosing previous marriages, relying instead on fake certificates and morphed photographs.”
The Court took judicial notice of the evolving nature of such petitions: “Due to the high volume of such petitions, a separate category, titled ‘Writ-C (Couple Protection),’ has been introduced in the roster of this Court.” It further acknowledged that while some petitions involved “genuine litigants who truly require judicial protection,” such instances were outnumbered by “petitions based on fabricated documents and false claims filed by ignorant litigants with the intervention of touts.”
The Court examined reports submitted by various authorities. It noted: “Following receipt of the police verification reports, it has been found that in almost 25% of the cases, the petitioners ceased to appear before the Court.” Additionally: “In several other cases, their counsels began seeking adjournments rather than arguing the matter on merits.”
On the consequences of these actions, the Court remarked: “The fabrication of key documents such as Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, affidavits, and birth certificates creates a systemic problem that not only threatens the sanctity of marriage but also facilitates human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and other social evils.”
Emphasising the scope of fundamental rights, the Court recorded: “Undoubtedly, every citizen, upon attaining the age of majority, has the fundamental right to choose a life partner and enter into a matrimonial alliance or live-in relationship.” However, it added: “This right cannot be exercised by circumventing statutory provisions or through the submission of forged and fabricated documents to the Court.”
The Court directed attention to the role of authorities and their responsibilities: “It is the collective responsibility of the State and its instrumentalities to ensure strict compliance with the law of the land and safeguard the integrity and sanctity of the institution of marriage.”
The Court expressed concern over the volume of marriages registered in Ghaziabad, stating: “This large-scale fraud could not have occurred without the tacit support or wilful negligence of the local police and Deputy Registrar office.” It further stated: “The continuation of such activities in an organized manner strongly suggests their knowledge, if not outright consent.”
On the legal framework, the Court stated: “Such practices have set a disturbing precedent that threatens to adversely affect the social fabric of society.”
The Court also highlighted the psychological and social impact on underage petitioners: “Such marriages often precipitate grave consequences including human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and forced labour. The children involved suffer profound emotional and psychological trauma resulting from social instability, exploitation, coercion, manipulation, and interruption of their education.”
The Court concluded that there must be accountability: “It is imperative to establish a robust mechanism for thorough document verification and to ensure stringent accountability of trusts and societies involved in solemnizing and registering marriages.”
Finally, regarding judicial restraint, the Court noted the need to prevent its jurisdiction from being misused: “Frivolous petitions founded on forged documents must be regulated to enforce the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act and preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage.”
Upon examining the facts presented in 124 connected petitions, the Court issued the following operative directions:
The Inspector General, Stamp and Registration, Uttar Pradesh, was directed to conduct a thorough investigation into the registration of 29,022 marriages in Ghaziabad during the period from 01.08.2023 to 01.08.2024. The Court ordered that:
“The Inspector General is further directed to submit suggestions and recommend appropriate remedial measures to address the discrepancies and prevent any misuse of the marriage registration process.”
It further directed that:
“The office of the Inspector General, Registration, undertakes a meaningful and coordinated dialogue with all relevant stakeholders, including authorities responsible for issuing Aadhar Cards, PAN Cards, Birth Certificates, Educational Board certificates, and marriage certificates issued by societies and trusts.”
The District Magistrate, Prayagraj, was instructed:
“To constitute a special team comprising the following members: (i) a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), who is familiar with the facts and orders passed by this Court, (ii) the Assistant Registrar, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj, (iii) the Marriage Registration Officer, Prayagraj, and (iv) any other officer deemed necessary, in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj.”
This team was directed to: “Visit all societies, whether registered or unregistered, as well as Purohits who are involved in solemnising marriages and issuing marriage certificates in cases involving runaway couples within the territorial jurisdiction of District Prayagraj.”
District Magistrates of Ghaziabad and Gautam Buddha Nagar were directed to undertake a similar exercise.
The Commissioners of Police, Gautam Buddha Nagar and Ghaziabad, were directed:
“To conduct a thorough and discreet inquiry into the activities of trusts and societies involved in solemnizing marriages in contravention of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.”
The scope of the investigation was to include identification of societies, profiling of key individuals, analysis of operational methods, examination of supporting documents, and review of financial transactions.
For each petition, the Court directed:
“A para-wise response to the contentions raised in the writ petition; verification of the Aadhar Card, PAN Card, and educational certificates of the petitioners; confirmation as to whether the marriage was solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and whether both petitioners were of legal age at the time of marriage; verification of the marriage certificate from the priest (Purohit) who allegedly conducted the ceremony, and from the issuing authority, such as the President/Secretary of the society.”
Finally, the Court recorded:“Suggestions were also invited from the Hon’ble Members of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association… Shri R. V. Mishra, learned Advocate, has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in its deliberations.”
Case Title: Shanidev and Another v. State of U.P. and 7 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:81511
Case Number: WRIT - C No. 22491 of 2024 (with 123 connected petitions)
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
