# Smt. Rani Dixit and Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors - **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1377 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-09-12 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49386 of 2013 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rani-dixit-and-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42707 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Letting) Act, 1972-Act No. 13 of 1972Section 34(1)- Amendment in written statement-after evidence clouser of-by amendment plea of six month prior notice sought-held-if plea not taken at initial stageshall be deemed waived-this ground-even then in absence of plea of land lord-no other person allowed to raise such plea-trail court rightly rejected amendment application. ## Text 3 All] Smt. Rani Dixit and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1377 21. In the result, the Writ Petition No. 48536 of 2013 is partly allowed. The order dated 1st August, 2013 is affirmed and the resolution dated 14th August, 2013 passed by the adhoc committee of management is quashed. 22. The Writ Petition No. 47944 of 2013 is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own cost. Let a certified copy of the order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties within a week on payment of usual charges. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49386 of 2013 Smt. Rani Dixit and Anr. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Art.-226- Petitioners alleging themselves as husband and wifeseeking protection being major-enterned into contract of marriage-no where pleaded regarding performance of marriage according to Hindu rits or marriage registered under special marriage Act-can not be given recognition by writ court as husband and wife-petition dismissed. Held: Para-12 It has not been pleaded to have been performed according to any other law in force governing the marriages between the Hindus namely Arya Samaj Marriage Validation Act etc. No law recognizes marriage of Hindus through any agreement or a contract, as marriage amongst the Hindus is not a contract but a sacrament. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners who have jointly filed this writ petition supported by the affidavit of petitioner no. 2 have claimed the following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent's no. 2 and 3 to provide the security to peacefully matrimonial life of the petitioners. III. Issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner." 3. The petitioners in the writ petition allege that both of them are major and have entered into a marriage contract on 15.6.2012 before the Notary Commissioner at Civil Court, Hathras. They are living as husband and wife but as the parents of petitioner no. 1 have not liked their decision of marriage, they with the help of police are interfering in their married life. 1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 4. In the writ petition there are no pleadings to show the manner in which the marriage of the petitioners was performed except that they have entered into a contract of marriage before the Notary Commissioner. 5. The petitioners are both Hindu by religion. The marriage between two Hindus is governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. Section 7 of the Act provides that Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rights and ceremonies and where such rights and ceremonies include Satpadi the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seven steps have been taken. 7. In view of the above, a marriage between two Hindus is to be solemnized according to customary rights and ceremonies which ordinarily in Northern India especially includes invocation of sacred fire, satpadi before it coupled with Kanyadan. 8. Petitioners have not pleaded any different customary rights and ceremonies and have also no where stated that they have performed the marriage according to any customary rights and ceremonies which are prevalent amongst the Hindus. 9. In the absence of such pleadings the marriage of the petitioners can not be recognized under the aforesaid Act. 10. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have entered into civil marriage and have got it registered under the U.P. Registration of Marriage Act, 1973. 11. The marriage of the petitioners is also not registered under the Special Marriage Act. 12. It has not been pleaded to have been performed according to any other law in force governing the marriages between the Hindus namely Arya Samaj Marriage Validation Act etc. No law recognizes marriage of Hindus through any agreement or a contract, as marriage amongst the Hindus is not a contract but a sacrament. 13. In view of the above, the Court refuses to recognize the marriage of the petitioners, if any. The petitioners are therefore not entitle to any relief from this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction on the basis of the marriage pleaded by them. 14. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. -------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51506 of 2013 Mahesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.C. Nigam Counsel for the Respondents: -- U.P. Urban Buildings(Regulation of Rent and Letting) Act, 1972-Act No. 13 of 1972Section 34(1)- Amendment in written statement-after evidence clouser of-by amendment plea of six month prior notice sought-held-if plea not taken at initial stageshall be deemed waived-this ground-even then in absence of plea of land lord-no other person allowed to raise such plea-trail court rightly rejected amendment application.