# Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-05
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 239 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shruti-agnihotri-v-anand-kumar-srivastava-52244
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Family Courts Act, 1984-Section 19-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 7, 8,
9, 12 & 28-Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 419, 420 & 496- Fraudulent
marriage-the respondent was claiming
marriage with the appellant but no
evidence produced-no pleading about any
celebration or festivities-he filed suit for
restitution for conjugal rights-the alleged
marriage, based on the Arya Samaj
certificate and Certificate of registration
at Registrar is a nullity, as prerequisites of
a valid marriage as per section 7 of the
Act, 1955 in the form of customary rites
(Saptpadi) were never performed and the
documents got signed fraudulently on the
pretext of getting them enrolled as
members of spiritual marination-Neither
the priest who may have performed the
marriage has produced in the Court nor
other persons who may have witnessed
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1301
the ceremony-Thus, in the absence of
marriage the certificate issued by any
entity is of no legal consequence.(Para 1
to 43)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,999 of 52,853. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._

1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
arises
incidentally
or
collaterally,
having
no
bearing
in
the
final
outcome, will not be a
substantial question of law.
Where there is a clear and
settled enunciation on a
question of law, by this
Court or by the High Court
concerned, it cannot be
said that the case involves
a substantial question of
law."

28. One of the contention of
learned counsel for the appellants in this
appeal is that since the defendant no.1;
Smt. Ram Sanehi who has not received the
remaining
amount
of
Rs.2000/-
and
executed the sale deed has died and no
legal representative has been brought on
record as she had no legal representative,
therefore, the judgment and decree passed
by the courts below is not executable. This
court is of the view that the contention of
learned for the appellants is misconceived
and not tenable because the judgment and
decree passed by the competent court of
law cannot be frustrated merely by death of
a person. Even otherwise the trial court has
passed an order that if the defendant no.1
does not execute the sale deed, the plaintiffrespondent can get it done from the court
on the expenses of defendants, therefore the
appellants can deposit the remaining
amount with the court concerned, who may
pay to the claimant, if any, as and when
comes forward on behalf of the defendant
no.1 and the court can execute the sale
deed.

29. In view of above and
considering
the
overall
facts
and
circumstances of the case this court is of
the view that the appeal has been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds, which
is liable to be dismissed.

30. With the aforesaid, this Second
Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1300
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

First Appeal No. 239 of 2023

Shruti Agnihotri ...Appellant
Versus
Anand Kumar Srivastava ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashish David Rao, Anurag Dixit, Shakti Kumar
Verma, Sunieta Ojha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Pradeep Kumar, Kapil Dev Chaubey, Seema
Kashyap

A. Family Courts Act, 1984-Section 19-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 7, 8,
9, 12 & 28-Indian Penal Code, 1860Sections 419, 420 & 496- Fraudulent
marriage-the respondent was claiming
marriage with the appellant but no
evidence produced-no pleading about any
celebration or festivities-he filed suit for
restitution for conjugal rights-the alleged
marriage, based on the Arya Samaj
certificate and Certificate of registration
at Registrar is a nullity, as prerequisites of
a valid marriage as per section 7 of the
Act, 1955 in the form of customary rites
(Saptpadi) were never performed and the
documents got signed fraudulently on the
pretext of getting them enrolled as
members of spiritual marination-Neither
the priest who may have performed the
marriage has produced in the Court nor
other persons who may have witnessed
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1301
the ceremony-Thus, in the absence of
marriage the certificate issued by any
entity is of no legal consequence.(Para 1
to 43)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Dolly Rani Vs Manish Kumar Chanchal , TA
(C) No. 2043 of 2023

2. Ashish Morya Vs Anamika Dhiman FAPL No.
830 of 2022

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. &
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Sunieta Ojha, learned
counsel for the appellant and Ms. Seema
Kashyap,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section
19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read
with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 challenging the judgment and order
dated 29.08.2023 passed in Original Suit
No. 1990 of 2009; Shruti Agnihotri Vs.
Anand Srivastava.

3. The appellant herein had filed a
Suit bearing No. 1990 of 2009 under
Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,
1955') against the respondent i.e. the
alleged husband, on 14.10.2009. The
respondent on the other hand filed a Suit
bearing No. 2168 of 2009 under Section 9
of the Act, 1955 on 11.11.2009 seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. Both the suits
were clubbed together for the purposes of
collecting and recording of evidence and
for being decided by a common judgment.
The evidence is therefore common. The
suit of the appellant under Section 12 of the
Act, 1955 has been dismissed, whereas, the
suit of the respondent under Section 9 of
the Act, 1955 has been decreed.

4. The facts of the case in brief are
that the appellant and her family were
residents of Kanpur. The appellant's 'mausi'
used to reside at Lucknow. Through her
'mausi'
the
family
members
of
the
appellant, except her father, came in touch
with the respondent herein, who, as alleged,
was a religious Guru and used to hold
religious discourses at his residence, at
Lucknow. The appellant while she was a
minor used to go with her mother, mausi
and maternal uncle, to the residence of
respondent for such religious discourses
including on the occasion of Gurupurnima
or other special occasions. The family
members of the appellant, except her father,
were deeply under the influence of the
respondent and used to refer him as their
Spiritual Guru. It is stated that during
ceremonies at the place of the respondent
certain 'prasad' including 'special prasad'
used to be given and on taking the same the
disciples used to feel elevated and used to
loose normal consciousness.

5. It is said that on 05.07.2009
which was Gurupurnima the respondent
called the mother of the appellant for
signing certain papers on the pretext of
enrolling them as members of his spiritual
institution, accordingly, the appellant and
her mother visited his place at Lucknow
and signed certain papers. It is alleged that
on 03.08.2009 when the appellant and her
mother had gone to Lucknow to attend
birthday of appellant's cousin, they were
again called by the respondent at his place
and made to sign certain papers on the
pretext of being witnesses to a sale deed
and they signed certain documents. It is
pertinent to mention that on the relevant
date i.e. 05.07.2009 the appellant had
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
barely crossed marriageable age of 18
years, say by 12 days, her date of birth
being 21.06.1991, whereas, the respondent
was at that time about 39 years of age.

6. On 05.08.2009 the respondent
called the father of the appellant to inform
him that he had married the appellant at
Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow
on 05.07.2009 and had got it registered
with the Registrar of Marriages on
03.08.2009. This sent the entire family into
a tizzy. They were all taken aback and felt
cheated by the fraudulent act of the
respondent, who, it appears, used the
signed papers aforesaid to get a marriage
registered, although, according to the
appellant, she had never married the
respondent and had never given her consent
for the same. All efforts by family members
of the appellant to contact the respondent
failed, but, ultimately, they some how
persuaded him to meet the family members
and the appellant's father and mausa
reached his residence on 04.09.2009. They
called the Police and get the respondent
arrested. An F.I.R. was lodged by the father
of the appellant at Police Station - Gazipur,
District- Lucknow under Sections 419, 420,
496 IPC.

7. It is against the aforesaid
background, as the appellant had never
married the respondent nor had she ever
consented for the same of her own free
will, a suit was filed by her under Section
12 of the Act, 1955. Thereafter, a Suit
under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 was filed
by the respondent.

8. Before the Family Court the
appellant examined herself as PW-1. Her
maternal uncle Harsh Shukla was examined
as PW-2 and her mother was examined as
PW-3. On the other hand the respondent
examined himself as DW-1. One Shri Anil
Kumar Khare was examined in chief by
way of an affidavit dated 01.07.2023 as
DW-2, however, he did not enter the
witness
box
for
cross
examination,
therefore, his testimony has not been taken
into consideration by the trial Court, rightly
so. One Shri Ram Pratap Giri was
examined as DW-3 on behalf of the
respondent.

9. Apart from it, documentary
evidence was also led by both the parties
which would be considered hereinafter.

10. The trial Court framed the
following issues in Suit No. 1990 of 2009
on 21.05.2017:-

"1- D;k oknh }kjk izfrokfnuh ls
Ny diV djds fookg fd;k x;k gS tSlk
fd okni= esa mfYyf[kr gS \
2- D;k okfnuh izfroknh ds fo#)
fookg fnukad 05-7-2009 dks 'kwU; djk ikus
dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS \
3- D;k okfnuh fdlh vU; vuqrks"k
dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \"

11. On the same date i.e.
21.05.2017 the following issues were
framed in Suit No. 2168 of 2009:-

" 1- D;k oknh okn i= esa fd;s
x;s vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij izfrokfnuh ds
fo#) oSokfgd lEcU/kksa ds iquZLFkkiuk dh
fMdzh izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gS tSlk fd
okni= esa dgk x;k g S\
2- D;k oknh vU; fdlh vuqrks"k
dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \"

12. On a consideration of the facts
pleaded and evidence led in the light of the
issues framed, the trial Court has recorded
a finding that Gurupurnima did not fall on
05.07.2009 instead it fell on 07.07.2009.
Further, from the marriage certificate
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1303
issued by Arya Samaj Mandir and the
Registrar of Marriages as also the photos
affixed thereon which has been accepted by
the appellant as hers and no evidence has
been led to rebut the said documentary
evidence, therefore, they were reliable.
Based on the aforesaid, the Court below
has recorded that the presence of the
appellant at the Arya Samaj Mandir and
Registrar's Office has been proved. The
Court below has recorded that certificate
issued
by
the Arya
Samaj
Mandir,
Ganeshgaj, Lucknow and the Registrar
bore the signature of the appellant's mother
Prama Agnihotri. PW- 2 Harsh Kumar
Shukla, her maternal uncle, on being
confronted with the aforesaid documents
stated that these were all fabricated
documents and that the appellant had
herself stated that she was deceived in
signing certain papers after taking some
'prasad' etc. The Court below found that
even PW-2 has accepted the signatures of
the appellant on the aforesaid documents.
The Court below has found contradictions
and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW3 and PW-1 i.e. the appellant. While PW-3
has stated that he has no knowledge of any
such marriage between the appellant and
the respondent and that it was a fraudulent
act, the appellant herself has stated in last
paragraph of her examination-in-chief that
marriage
between
the
appellant
and
respondent had taken place on 05.07.2009
fraudulently and that the same be declared
null and void. Thus, the appellant on the
one hand denies the marriage and on the
other hand has sought a declaration that the
marriage be declared as null and void,
whereas, even in the first information
report lodged by the father of the appellant
there is a mention about she being taken to
the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's
Office and the father has also stated therein
about marriage being solemnized in the
temple. The Court below found that the
case set-up by the appellant/plaintiff that at
the time of marriage and registration of the
same she was hypnotized and was not in
her senses, but, this was not believable, as,
the Arya Samaj Mandir and Registrar's
Office are not secluded place. These are
public place where several persons are
present. The trial Court has opined that the
appellant has also not given any reason as
to why no medical examination was got
done and action taken when she fell slightly
different on taking 'prasad' given by
respondent. Though, the appellant had
denied her writing on some of the
documents viz C-50/1, C-50/2, C-50/3 and
50/4, she had not adduced any evidence of
a hand writing expert to prove that some of
the said documents had been written by the
respondent. The Court below did not find
any document on record establishing that
the respondent had been convicted of the
offence alleged in the F.I.R. lodged against
him by father of the appellant. The Court
below found that on 03.07.2009 appellant
was a major and had completed her
intermediate and her mother possessed the
educational qualification of M.A., B.A. and
was a Teacher, therefore, it was not
believable that they would be present at the
Arya Samaj Mandir and at the Registrar's
Office
for
registration
of
marriage
unknowingly or under some influence and
would also sign the documents relating to
such marriage. The appellant and her
family members did not take any action if
they were of the opinion that the
respondent was using 'tantra mantra' on
them. The Family Court has found that,
although, there is a difference of 20 years
in the age of the appellant and respondent,
but, the presence of the appellant at the
Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar's
Office is proved and the appellant had
failed to prove that the marriage was
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
solemnized by fraud or deceit by the
respondent. The Court below has also taken
into
consideration
the
testimony
of
respondent- herein that the appellant had
given her consent to marriage and was
agreeable to the same till she was beaten up
by her maternal uncle and it is under
pressure of her family members that all
these proceedings have been initiated.
Accordingly, the trial Court has dismissed
the suit of the appellant.

13. With regard the Suit No. 2168
of 2009 under Section 9 of the Act, 1955
filed by the respondent there is no
discussion by the trial Court in the light of
the ingredients/ parameters mentioned in
the said provision, satisfaction of which is a
prerequisite for decreeing such a suit for
restitution of conjugal rights. The trial
Court has simply mentioned the willingness
of the respondent to take his wife i.e. the
appellant, with him, and accordingly, the
Suit has been decreed.

14.

The
contention
of
the
appellant' counsel is that in fact no
marriage took place between the appellant
and the respondent. The alleged marriage
and registration of marriage is a fraudulent
act by the respondent referable to Section
12(1)(c) of the Act, 1955. On the other
hand the respondent's counsel submitted
that there is sufficient proof on record to
prove that marriage had taken place
between the appellant and the respondent
and she being a major and she as also her
mother
being
educated
ladies
it
is
unbelievable that they would go to the Arya
Samaj
Mandir
to
get
the
marriage
solemnized and then to the Registrar of
marriages to get it registered without their
consent and free will. The turn around in
their stand is on account of pressure of the
family, nothing else. There is no reasonable
excuse for the appellant to withdraw from
the society of the respondent, therefore, no
interference is called for by this Court with
the judgment of the trial Court.

15. It is not in dispute that both the
appellant and the respondent are Hindus. It
is case of the respondent as is evident from
the pleadings that his marriage with the
appellant was solemnized as per Hindu
rites and customs. Thus, there is no dispute
that both the parties are Hindus and the
marriage being claimed by the respondent
is not under the Special Marriage Act, 1954
but as per Hindu rites and customs,
therefore, necessarily it has to be in terms
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
respondent claims that marriage had taken
place
at
the
Arya
Samaj
Mandir,
Ganeshganj, Lucknow, thereafter, it was
got registered in the Office of Registrar of
the marriages, which is referable to Section
8 of the Act, 1955 and the Rules made
thereunder by the State Government. The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 applies not only
to Hindus but also to followers of Brahmo,
Prarthana or Arya Samaj and other
religious communities.

16. The points which fall for
determination in this appeal are as under:-

(1) Whether any marriage
was
solemnized
between
the
appellant and the respondent as per
Hindu rites and customs and in
terms of Section 7 of the Act, 1955
or not ?
(2) Whether such marriage
was solemnized with the consent
and free will of the appellant or
fraudulently.
If
not,
the
consequences and relief to which
the appellant may be entitled under
Section 12 of the Act, 1955 ?
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1305
(3) If the answer to the
aforesaid questions, is also in the
affirmative, then, the other point
for determination would be as to
whether the appellant has/had any
reasonable cause to withdraw from
the Society of the respondent. If
not, then, the relief to which the
respondent would be entitled in his
Suit under Section 9 of the Act,
1955 ?
Point No. 1 is implicit in
Point no. 2.

17. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
records including the records of the trial
Court, we find that the appellant herein had
attained marriageable age of 18 years on
21.06.2009. She had, thus, barely crossed
12 days from the marriageable age when
the alleged marriage is said to have taken
place. The family members including the
appellant revered the respondent as their
spiritual guru, however, the father, as has
come in the testimony of the appellant
herself, did not approve of such activities
nor did he ever visit the respondent at
Lucknow nor was he present at the time of
the alleged marriage at Arya Samaj Mandir,
Ganeshganj, Lucknow nor in the office of
Registrar of Marriages at Lucknow. Even
the respondent has not deposed about his
presence at any time at his place or during
alleged marriage at the Arya Samaj Mandir
or at the time of its registration at Lucknow.
No
doubt,
05.07.2009
was
not
a
Gurupurnima, instead, it was on 07.07.2009
and it appears that the cousin's birthday was
also not on 03.08.2009, facts which have
weighed with the trial Court in disbelieving
the case of the appellant. In our opinion the
trial Court has missed the woods for the
trees. The appellant has nowhere admitted
marriage with the respondent as claimed by
the latter. The allegation of fraud in respect
of the marriage being claimed by the
respondent is on account of certain papers
having been got signed by the respondent
and, as apprehended, the same being used
for preparation of relevant certificates etc.
to show that some marriage had taken place
between the appellant and the respondent,
but, such pleadings on behalf of the
appellant can not constitute admission of
any relationship of husband and wife with
the respondent nor of any marriage having
taken place between them. She has
nowhere admitted that any such marriage
had taken place in accordance with Hindu
rites and customs nor has she admitted
performance of any such ceremonies which
were necessary for a valid Hindu marriage.
In fact, it has been stated in paragraph 10
and 11 of her plaint that on 05.08.2009 the
respondent telephoned her father to inform
him that he had married the appellant on
05.07.2009 and had got it registered on
03.08.2009. On receiving such information
the appellant-plaintiff and her family
members underwent great mental stress and
pain because the appellant and her family
members reposed trust in the respondent as
their Spiritual Guru but had been deceived
and without consent of the appellant a
fabricated marriage was being claimed on
the basis of cheating and deceit. The
background of these pleadings is the
assertion in Paragraph 7 about getting some
papers signed by the appellant and her
mother on the false pretext of sale of
property or getting them enrolled as
members of spiritual marination. It is in
this context that these allegations have been
made. These can not be construed as an
admission of any marriage as per law with
the respondent.

18. In para 14 of her plaint the
appellant-plaintiff has clearly stated that
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she had never given such consent for
marriage. She has stated that it is the result
of cheating, fraud and deceit. The marriage
has been referred as a fabricated marriage.
This can never be construed as admission
of any such marriage of the appellant with
the respondent. She has categorically stated
in Para 15 that not only the marriage was a
fabricated one she had never lived as
husband and wife prior to or after such
alleged marriage. No relationship of
husband and wife had been formed prior to
or subsequent to such fabricated marriage.

19. In this regard we may also
examine
the
testimony
of
the
appellant/plaintiff i.e. PW-1. Therein, also
we do not find any admission of such
marriage or the ceremonies which are
necessary
for
solemnization
of
such
marriage as per Hindu rites and customs so
as to constitute a valid marriage as per law.
In
her
cross
examination
she
has
categorically stated - 'esjh vkuUn ls dHkh dksbZ
'kknh gq;h gh ugha'. If there was any doubt in
this regard the same stood clarified by this
statement in her cross examination by the
respondent-defendant. She has denied the
certificate of marriage issued by the Arya
Samaj Mandir and the Registrar of
marriages. When she was shown the
photographs affixed on the certificate of
marriage issued by the Registrar's Office
she has stated that, though, the photo
appears to be hers but she has never got
such marriage registered. She has reiterated
that the respondent/defendant got some
papers signed by her and her mother on the
pretext of purchasing some property and
enrolling them as members of his spiritual
organization and, believing him, as, they
had a relationship of trust and faith, he
being their being Spiritual Guru, they
signed the papers. She has reiterated that
she has never solemnized any marriage
with the respondent/defendant in her
senses, which can not be treated as an
admission of any such marriage. She has
denied any pressure of her family members
in filing the Suit etc. She has denied having
ever lived with the respondent/defendant.
She has denied that any marriage was
solemnized between the the appellant and
the respondent/defendant with her consent.

20. In view of the above, as it is
the respondent who claims marriage with
the appellant-plaintiff the burden to prove
such marriage as per Hindu rites and
customs was upon him.

21. Now, in this context, when we
peruse
the
the
pleadings
of
the
respondent/defendant we find that in Para 4
of the written statement filed in Suit No.
1990 of 2009 he has admitted that people
used to call him for spiritual discourses at
their home and several other persons would
also take part in the said discourses.
Although, he has denied the relationship of
Guru and Disciple with the appellant but
the aforesaid fact has been accepted by him
that he used to hold spiritual discourses. In
his written statement he has nowhere stated
that marriage between him and the
appellant was solemnized in accordance
with the Hindu rites and customs. He has
simply stated that marriage had taken place
on 05.07.2009 which was got registered on
03.08.2009 and that the appellant and her
mother had signed requisite papers in this
regard. In the plaint filed by him under
Section 9 of the Act, 1955, in para 2 he has
stated that he and the appellant herein are
Hindus and that they have married each
other at Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj,
Lucknow on 05.07.2009 in the presence of
their family members i.e. the appellant's
and respondent's family members as per
rites and customs of Hindu religion. As, he
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1307
has claimed marriage with the appellant,
therefore, the burden of proving the same
was upon him, especially as, the appellant
has nowhere admitted such marriage as per
Hindu rites and customs. In fact, in her
written statement she has categorically
denied
the
averments
made
by
the
respondent in Para 2 of his plaint under
Section 9 of the Act, 1955. She has stated
that in fact the respondent claims himself as
an incarnation of God and used to call
himself 'Anand Prabhu' and used to give
spiritual discourses and 'Satsang'. She has
reiterated her stand in the written statement
in the Suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955
as in her plaint under Section 12 of the Act,
1955.

22. Now, against this when we see
evidence led by the respondent/ defendant
we find firstly that there is a copy of the
F.I.R. lodged by the appellant's father. The
appellant has clearly testified in her
testimony that her father never visited the
residence
or
place
of
the
respondent/defendant to attend spiritual
discourses or to meet him, in fact, he used
to discourage such activities and did not
believe in them. There is no evidence led
by the respondent/defendant that the father
of the appellant was present at the time of
marriage at the Arya Samaj Mandir or at
the time of its registration. The F.I.R. has
been lodged under Sections 419, 420, 496
IPC not by the appellant but by the father
who obviously would have 'presumed'
certain things as he had not seen the alleged
marriage. Any recital in the F.I.R. lodged
by the appellant's father would not bind the
appellant nor can it be used as proof that
she has admitted her marriage to the
respondent/defendant. In view of the above,
the trial Court has erred in relying upon the
recitals in the F.I.R.

23. As regards, the marriage
certificate issued by the Arya Samaj
Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow i.e. the
certificate paper C-47 does not bear the
signature of the appellant or her family
members. The said document has been
denied
by
the
appellant/plaintiff.
A
photocopy of another document (C-55/8)
purporting to be a certificate of marriage
issued by Arya Samaj Mandir attested by
its alleged 'care taker' Pandit Satish Tiwari
on 22.05.2023 has been filed. This
document has also been denied by the
appellant and her mother. In any case such
certificate by itself does not prove a valid
marriage as per Hindu rites and customs.
Issuance of such certificates by the Arya
Samaj Mandir have been considered by
Courts in several cases and it has been held
that such certificates have no meaning
unless and until prerequisites for a valid
Hindu marriage are completed/satisfied and
proved. The respondent/defendant has not
produced any witness from the Arya Samaj
Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow to prove
that any such ceremonies, which are
necessary for a valid Hindu marriage, were
performed on 05.07.2009 at the Arya Samaj
Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow. We may in
this very context refer to the provisions of
Section 7 of the Act, 1955 which read as
under:-

"7. Ceremonies for a Hindu
marriage.- (1) A Hindu marriage
may be solemnized in accordance
with the customary rites and
ceremonies of either party thereto.
(2) Where such rites and
ceremonies include the Saptapadi
(that is, the taking of seven steps by
the bridegroom and the bride
jointly before the sacred fire), the
marriage becomes complete and
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
binding when the seventh step is
taken."

24. Neither in the pleadings
contained in the plaint filed by the
respondent under Section 9 of the Act,
1955 nor in the pleadings contained in his
written statement filed in the suit of the
appellant under Section 12 has he pleaded
about any such customary rites and
ceremonies which are required to be
performed at a Hindu marriage as having
been performed on 05.07.2009 at the Arya
Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow so as
to constitute a valid Hindu marriage
between the appellant and the respondent.
It has also not been pleaded that it was not
the custom to perform such necessary rites
and ceremonies including 'Saptapadi' etc.

25. As already stated the priest
who may have performed those ceremonies
has not been produced in Court. No other
person who may have participated in such
marriage ceremony and may have the
witnessed
the
customary
rites
and
ceremonies being performed regarding the
marriage
of
the
appellant
with
the
respondent has been produced before the
Court in support of his case.

26. We may in this very context
refer to a recent decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court dated 19.04.2024 rendered
in Transfer Petition (C) No. 2043 of 2023;
Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal.
Although, in the said case the parties
arrived at an agreement to dissolve their
marriage but in this very context they stated
that in fact no marriage was solemnized
and they had merely got their marriage
registered and certificate of marriage had
been issued by an organization known as
Vadik Jankalayan Samiti under the U.P.
Registration Rules, 2017 and a certificate
of marriage was also issued by the
Registrar
of
Marriages.
Hon'ble
the
Supreme Court held that when there was no
Hindu marriage which took place between
them, the issuance of the said certificate
was of no consequence. In fact, it
considered at length the provisions of
Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, 1955 the
prerequisite of a valid Hindu marriage. As
the ratio of the said judgment is relevant to
the facts of the case, therefore, we fruitfully
quote relevant extracts thereof which are as
under:-

"But before granting the
reliefs sought for by the parties we
wish to make certain observations.
Section 7 of the Act reads
as under:
"7.
Ceremonies
for
a
Hindu marriage.-(1) A Hindu
marriage may be solemnized in
accordance with the customary
rites and ceremonies of either party
thereto. (2) Where such rites and
ceremonies include the Saptapadi
(that is, the taking of seven steps by
the bridegroom and the bride
jointly before the sacred fire), the
marriage becomes complete and
binding when the seventh step is
taken."
Section 7 of the Act speaks
about ceremonies of a Hindu
marriage. Sub-section (1) uses the
word "solemnised". 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". Further, sub-section
(2) of Section 7 states that where
such rites and ceremonies include
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1309
the saptapadi, i.e., the taking of
seven steps by the bridegroom and
the bride jointly before the sacred
fire,
the
marriage
becomes
complete and binding when the
seventh step is taken. Therefore,
requisite
ceremonies
for
the
solemnisation
of
the
Hindu
marriage must be in accordance
with the applicable customs or
usage and where saptapadi has
been
adopted,
the
marriage
becomes complete and binding
when the seventh step is taken.
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. In other words,
for a valid marriage under the Act,
the requisite ceremonies have to be
performed and there must be proof
of
performance
of
the
said
ceremony
when
an
issue/controversy arise. 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 Hindu law.
A perusal of the marriage
certificate produced in the instant
case along with the application
filed under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India states that the
'marriage' between the parties has
been
solemnised
according
to
Hindu Vedic rites and customs. The
certificate
issued
by
Vadik
Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.) in the
absence of any indication as to the
rites
and
customs
that
were
performed and as to whether the
requirements under Section 7 of the
Act was complied with would not
be a certificate evidencing a Hindu
marriage
in
accordance
with
Section 7 of the Act. In the absence
of any ceremony being performed
such a certificate could not have
been issued. It is on the basis of the
said certificate that the Marriage
Registration Officer has issued
under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage
Registration
Rule,
2017
a
certificate stating that the parties
had presented before the office on
07.07.2021 and had declared that
their marriage was solemnised on
the said date at Vadik Jankalyan
Samiti (Regd.), Ghaziabad and on
the basis of the said certificate
issued by the said entity, the
Marriage
Registration
Officer
registered the marriage which is
under Section 8 of the Act.
Section 8 of the Act reads
as under:
"8. Registration of Hindu
marriages.-(1) For the purpose of
facilitating the proof of Hindu
marriages, the State Government
may make rules providing that the
parties to any such marriage may
have the particulars relating to
their marriage entered in such
manner
and
subject
to
such
conditions as may be prescribed in
a Hindu Marriage Register kept for
the purpose.
(2)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section
(1), the State Government may, if it
is of opinion that it is necessary or
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expedient so to do, provide that the
entering of the particulars referred
to in sub-section (1) shall be
compulsory in the State or in any
part thereof, whether in all cases or
in such cases as may be specified,
and where any such direction has
been
issued,
any
person
contravening any rule made in this
behalf shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to twenty-five
rupees.
(3) All rules made under
this section shall be laid before the
State Legislature, as soon as may
be, after they are made.
(4) The Hindu Marriage
Register shall at all reasonable
times be open for inspection, and
shall be admissible as evidence of
the statements therein contained
and certified extracts therefrom
shall, on application, be given by
the Registrar on payment to him of
the prescribed fee.
(5)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in this section,
the validity of any Hindu marriage
shall in no way be affected by the
omission to make the entry."
Under Section 8 of the Act,
it is open for two Hindus married
under the provisions of the Act to
have their marriage registered
provided they fulfil the conditions
laid
down
therein
regarding
performance
of
requisite
ceremonies. It is only when the
marriage
is
solemnised
in
accordance with Section 7, there
can be a marriage registered under
Section 8. The State Governments
have the power to make rules
relating to the registration of
marriages between two Hindus
solemnised by way of requisite
ceremonies.
The
advantage
of
registration is that it facilitates
proof of factum of marriage in a
disputed case. But if there has been
no marriage in accordance with
Section 7, the registration would
not
confer
legitimacy
to
the
marriage.
We
find
that
the
registration of Hindu marriages
under the said provision is only to
facilitate the proof of a Hindu
marriage but for that, there has to
be a Hindu marriage in accordance
with Section 7 of the Act inasmuch
as there must be a marriage
ceremony which has taken place
between the parties in accordance
with the said provision. Although
the parties may have complied with
the requisite conditions for a valid
Hindu marriage as per Section 5 of
the Act in the absence of there
being a "Hindu marriage" in
accordance with Section 7 of the
Act, i.e., solemnization of such a
marriage, there would be no Hindu
marriage in the eye of law. In the
absence of there being a valid
Hindu marriage, the Marriage
Registration Officer cannot register
such
a
marriage
under
the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act.
Therefore, if a certificate is issued
stating
that
the
couple
had
undergone marriage and if the
marriage ceremony had not been
performed in accordance with
Section 7 of the Act, then the
registration of such marriage under
Section 8 would not confer any
legitimacy to such a marriage. The
registration of a marriage under
Section 8 of the Act is only to
confirm that the parties have
7 All. Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava
1311
undergone
a
valid
marriage
ceremony
in
accordance
with
Section 7 of the Act. In other words,
a certificate of marriage is a proof
of validity of Hindu marriage only
when such a marriage has taken
place and not in a case where there
is
no
marriage
ceremony
performed at all.
We further observe that a
Hindu marriage is a sacrament and
has a sacred character. In the
context of saptapadi in a Hindu
marriage, according to Rig Veda,
after completing the seventh step
(saptapadi) the bridegroom says to
his bride, "With seven steps we
have become friends (sakha). May I
attain to friendship with thee; may I
not
be
separated
from
thy
friendship". A wife is considered to
be half of oneself (ardhangini) but
to be accepted with an identity of
her own and to be a co-equal
partner in the marriage. There is
nothing like a "better-half" in a
marriage but the spouses are equal
halves in a marriage. In Hindu
Law, as already noted, marriage is
a sacrament or a samskara. It is the
foundation for a new family.
With
the
passage
of
centuries and the enactment of the
Act, monogamy is the only legally
approved
form
of
relationship
between a husband and a wife. The
Act has categorically discarded
polyandry and polygamy and all
other such types of relationships.
The intent of the Parliament is also
that there should be only one form
of marriage having varied rites and
customs and rituals. Thus, when the
Act came into force on 18.05.1955,
it has amended and codified the
law relating to marriage among
Hindus. The Act encompasses not
only Hindus as such but Lingayats,
Brahmos,
Aryasamajists,
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs also
who can enter into a valid Hindu
marriage
coming
within
the
expansive connotation of the word
Hindu..........
........... In the absence of
there being any such marriage in
accordance with Section 7 of the
Act, a certificate issued in that
regard by any entity is of no legal
consequence.
Further,
any
registration of a marriage which
has not at all taken place under
Section 8 of the Act and as per the
rules
made
by
the
State
Government would not be evidence
of a Hindu marriage and also does
not confer the status of a husband
and a wife to a couple."

27. It has been categorically held
in the said judgment that in absence of
there
being
any
such
marriage
in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act, a
certificate issued in that regard by any
entity is of no legal consequence. Further,
any registration of a marriage, which has
not at all taken place, under Section 8 of
the Act and as per the rules made by the
State Government would not be evidence
of a Hindu marriage and also does not
confer the status of a husband and a wife to
a couple. It accordingly declared the
certificate issued by the Vadik Jankalyan
Smiti dated 07.07.2021 and the certificate
issued under the U.P. Registration Rules,
2017 as null and void and also declared that
the petitioner and the respondent were not
married in accordance with the provisions
of the Act, 1955 and therefore, they have
never acquired the status of husband and
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wife. The law on the subject has been
succinctly and lucidly explained in the
aforesaid extracts from the judgment of the
Supreme Court. It has been categorically
held with reference to Section 7 of the Act,
1955 that unless and until the marriage is
performed with appropriate ceremonies and
in due form, it cannot be said to be
"solemnised". Requisite ceremonies for
solemnisation of a Hindu marriage must be
in accordance with the applicable customs
or usage and where Saptapadi has been
adopted, the marriage becomes complete
and binding when the seventh step is taken.
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.