# Sunil Dubey v. Minakshi

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 387
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-26
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9347 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-dubey-v-minakshi-53687
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Petitioner filed an application Paper No. 13- Ka
with the prayer that the Registration Certificate
is not available with the parties and there is no
compulsory
requirement
for
getting
the
marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The said application was also
supported by the opposite party. The court
below by order dated 31.07.2025 has rejected
the application filed by the petitioner on the
ground that as per Rule 3(a) of Hindu Marriage
and Divorce Rules, 1956 dated 18.09.1956,
(hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1956") it is
mandatory that in every proceeding under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 marriage certificate
should be annexed along with the proceedings,
therefore, even though there is no objection by
the other side, since the filing of marriage
certificate is mandatory as per Rule 3(a) of
Rules, 1956, the same can not be exempted and
the application of the petitioner was rejected

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13 (B), The Hindu Marriage and
Divorce
Rules,
1956-
Rule
3(a)
-
Registration certificate is only an evidence
to prove the marriage and absence of
registration of marriage will not invalidate
the marriage in view of sub Section 5 of
Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Insistence for filing the registration
certificate
is
uncalled
for
-
Petition
Allowed.

Held- That insistence by the Principal Judge,
Family Court for filing the marriage certificate is
wholly uncalled for and therefore, the order
passed by the court below is liable to be set
aside (Para 25) ( E-15)

Case Law Cited
Malati Dasi Vs. Japa Hari Pal and Ors
MANU/WB/0363/1989;R. Anita Marginic Vs. R.
Annadurai 1992(1) HLR 509;P. Kamakshi alias
Kala Jacob Vs. P. Devaki and others 2000(2)
MLJ 564;Varindra Singh and another Vs. State
of Rajasthan 2005 (2) HLR 544;Seema (SMT)
Vs. Ashwani Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578;Dolly Rani
Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal 2024 LawSuit (SC)
387;Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
another in Application U/S 482 No. 38746 of
2024 decided on 8.04.2025;Sangram Singh
versus Election Tribunal Kotah AIR 1955
SCC425;Chinnammal
and
other
versus
Arumugham (1990) 1 SCC 513;Ghanshyam Das
versus Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 46;Sukhveer
Singh versus Brijpal Singh (1997) 2 SCC
200;Salem Advocate Bar Association versus
Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SCC 3353

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, The Hindu Marriage
and Divorce Rules, 1956- Rule 3(a)

List of Keywords
Absence of registration of marriage will not
invalidate
the
marriage;
Insistence
for
registration
certificate
is
uncalled
for;
Registration of marriage; only an evidence to
prove the marriage; No dispute regarding
factum of marriage; Body of procedural laws
designed
to
facilitate
justice;
Rule
and
procedure are handmaid of justice and not its
mistress
Case Arising From
Order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1,
Azamgarh in Case No. 1138 of 2024 (Sunil
Dubey Vs. Minakshi)

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar
Chaturvedi

## Text

8 All. Sunil Dubey Vs. Minakshi
387
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed
finally by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by
judgment and order dated 29.11.2022. The
said order has neither been recalled nor
been set aside and therefore, the liability to
make payment in terms of the order
continues unless the same is set aside,
varied or modified by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court .

20. So far as contention of learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
proceeding of the matrimonial case filed by
the petitioner was got stayed by respondent
No. 2 by filing a transfer petition before
this Court therefore, during the period for
which
the
proceedings
are
stayed,
petitioner will not be liable to make
payment of maintenance under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is
wholly misconceived for two reasons,
firstly, mere stay of proceedings by this
Court will not amount to termination of
the proceedings. In this regard, Supreme
Court in case of Shree Chamundi
Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South
India Trust Association CSI CINOD
Secretariat, Madras, reported in (1992)
3 SCC 1, has held that a distinction has
to be made between quashing of an order
and staying of an operation of an order.
Quashing
of
an
order
results
in
restoration of the position as it stood on
the date of passing of the order which has
been quashed. The staying of operation of
an order does not, however, lead to such
result. It only means that order which has
been stayed would not operate from the
date of passing of the stay order and it
does not mean that the said order has
been
wiped
out
from
existence.
Therefore, mere staying the proceedings
of the matrimonial case by this Court will
not
amount
that
the
matrimonial
proceedings came to an end, absolving
the petitioner of his liability to pay the
maintenance amount from the date of stay
of proceedings.

21.
Secondly,
even
the
proceedings for transfer of matrimonial
case from Pilibhit to Bareilly would
amount
to
the
proceedings
contemplated under Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 in view of judgment of this
Court in case of Surendra Kumar
Asthana Vs. Kamlesh Asthana (supra)
and therefore, the wife is entitled for
maintenance during the continuance of
transfer proceedings.

22. In my view, the contentions raised
by counsel for the petitioner are of no avail
and the petitioner will not be absolved from
his liability to pay the maintenance amount
merely,
because
the
proceedings
of
matrimonial case has been stayed.

23. No illegality has been committed
by the court below in directing for recovery
of the said amount. The petition lacks merit
and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 387
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9347 of 2025

Sunil Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
Minakshi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Petitioner filed an application Paper No. 13- Ka
with the prayer that the Registration Certificate
is not available with the parties and there is no
compulsory
requirement
for
getting
the
marriage registered under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The said application was also
supported by the opposite party. The court
below by order dated 31.07.2025 has rejected
the application filed by the petitioner on the
ground that as per Rule 3(a) of Hindu Marriage
and Divorce Rules, 1956 dated 18.09.1956,
(hereinafter referred as "Rules, 1956") it is
mandatory that in every proceeding under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 marriage certificate
should be annexed along with the proceedings,
therefore, even though there is no objection by
the other side, since the filing of marriage
certificate is mandatory as per Rule 3(a) of
Rules, 1956, the same can not be exempted and
the application of the petitioner was rejected

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 13 (B), The Hindu Marriage and
Divorce
Rules,
1956-
Rule
3(a)
-
Registration certificate is only an evidence
to prove the marriage and absence of
registration of marriage will not invalidate
the marriage in view of sub Section 5 of
Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Insistence for filing the registration
certificate
is
uncalled
for
-
Petition
Allowed.

Held- That insistence by the Principal Judge,
Family Court for filing the marriage certificate is
wholly uncalled for and therefore, the order
passed by the court below is liable to be set
aside (Para 25) ( E-15)

Case Law Cited
Malati Dasi Vs. Japa Hari Pal and Ors
MANU/WB/0363/1989;R. Anita Marginic Vs. R.
Annadurai 1992(1) HLR 509;P. Kamakshi alias
Kala Jacob Vs. P. Devaki and others 2000(2)
MLJ 564;Varindra Singh and another Vs. State
of Rajasthan 2005 (2) HLR 544;Seema (SMT)
Vs. Ashwani Kumar (2006) 2 SCC 578;Dolly Rani
Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal 2024 LawSuit (SC)
387;Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
another in Application U/S 482 No. 38746 of
2024 decided on 8.04.2025;Sangram Singh
versus Election Tribunal Kotah AIR 1955
SCC425;Chinnammal
and
other
versus
Arumugham (1990) 1 SCC 513;Ghanshyam Das
versus Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 46;Sukhveer
Singh versus Brijpal Singh (1997) 2 SCC
200;Salem Advocate Bar Association versus
Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SCC 3353

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, The Hindu Marriage
and Divorce Rules, 1956- Rule 3(a)

List of Keywords
Absence of registration of marriage will not
invalidate
the
marriage;
Insistence
for
registration
certificate
is
uncalled
for;
Registration of marriage; only an evidence to
prove the marriage; No dispute regarding
factum of marriage; Body of procedural laws
designed
to
facilitate
justice;
Rule
and
procedure are handmaid of justice and not its
mistress
Case Arising From
Order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1,
Azamgarh in Case No. 1138 of 2024 (Sunil
Dubey Vs. Minakshi)

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar
Chaturvedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

1. This petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 31.07.2025
passed by Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Court No. 1, Azamgarh in
Case No. 1138 of 2024 (Sunil Dubey Vs.
Minakshi) by which an application filed by
the petitioner Paper No. 13-Ka for waiving
off the filing of registration certificate of
the marriage before the court has been
rejected by the court below.
8 All. Sunil Dubey Vs. Minakshi
389

2. Brief facts of the case are that
husband-petitioner and defendant-wife filed
an application under Section 13 (B) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce by
mutual consent on 23.10.2024 which was
registered as Case No. 1338 of 2024.
During the pendency of the petition,
learned Family Court Judge by order dated
04.07.2025 fixed 29.07.2025 for filing of
marriage certificate. The petitioner filed an
application Paper No. 13-Ka with the
prayer that the Registration Certificate is
not available with the parties and there is
no compulsory requirement for getting the
marriage registered under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as
"Act, 1955") therefore, the petitioner may
be exempted from filing the marriage
certificate. The said application was also
supported by the opposite party. The court
below by order dated 31.07.2025 has
rejected the application filed by the
petitioner on the ground that as per Rule
3(a) of Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules,
1956
dated
18.09.1956,
(hereinafter
referred as "Rules, 1956") it is mandatory
that in every proceeding under the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 marriage certificate
should
be
annexed
along
with
the
proceedings, therefore, even though there is
no objection by the other side, since the
filing of marriage certificate is mandatory
as per Rule 3(a) of Rules, 1956, the same
can not be exempted and the application of
the petitioner was rejected. Hence the
present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that Section 8 of the Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
provides
for
registration of marriage but the marriage is
not invalidated for want of registration of
marriage and it has been further submitted
by the counsel for the petitioner that since
the
marriage
of
the
petitioner
was
solemnized on 27.06.2010, therefore, the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Marriage
Registration
Rules,
2017
(hereinafter
referred as "Rules, 2017") will not apply to
marriage
solemnized
before
the
commencement of the Rules and even
otherwise, as per Rule 6 of Rules, 2017, the
marriage will not be illegal for want of
registration.

4. Since there is no objection by the
other side to the application filed by the
petitioner and the petition is arising out of
proceedings under Section 13(B) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 this petition is
being disposed of at the admission stage
itself without issuing notice to the opposite
party as there is no factual dispute in the
petition.

5. Before considering the submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner, it
would be appropriate to consider the
provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 which is quoted as
under:-

"Section
8
in
The
Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955

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
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessary or 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."

6. There was no requirement of
registration of the Hindu marriage before
the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Generally, Hindus do not get their
marriages
registered
unlike
adoption,
transfer of property and partition. The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not contain
the rules of registration and the State
Government has been authorized to make
the rules. The State Government has
promulgated
Uttar
Pradesh
Marriage
Registration Rules, 2017 in exercise of
powers under Article 154 read with Article
162 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(1)
of the Rules, 2017 provides that after the
commencement of the Rules, any marriage
solemnized where one of the parties is
permanent resident of State of U.P. or
where the marriage has been solemnized
within the limits of State of U.P., the
registration will be mandatory. Sub-rule (2)
of Rule 6 provides, in case, the marriages
which are not being registered can be
registered after commencement of these
Rules in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by Rule 7 of Rules, 2017. It
further
provides
that
any
marriage
solemnized prior to commencement of this
Rule or after the commencement of this
Rule will not be illegal for want of
registration. Rule 6 of Uttar Pradesh
Marriage Registration Rules, 2017is quoted
as under:-

"(1) इस लनयमावली के प्रारम्भ होने के
पश्चात, सम्पन्न प्रत्येक लववाह या पुनलवटवाह, जहााँ लववाह के
पक्षकारों में से कोई एक उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य का स्थायी
लनवासी हो अथवा लववाह उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य की सीमा के
अन्दर सम्पन्न हुआ हो, का पंजीकरण कराया जाना अलनवायट
होगा।

परन्तु यह लक ऐसे लववाह लजनका पंजीकरण
भारत के लकसी राज्य में प्रवृत्त लववाह पंजीकरण अलिलनयम
/लनयमावली के अिीन लकया गया है इस लनयमावली के
लागू होने के पश्चात इस लनयमावली के अन्तगटत पंजीकृत
माने जायेंगे।

(2) ऐसे लववाह लजनका पंजीकरण अभी तक
नहीं कराया गया है, इस लनयमावली के लागू होने के पश्चात
लनयम 7 में लवलहत रीलत से कराया जा सकता है। इस
लनयमावली के लागू होने के पूवट अथवा पश्चात सम्पन्न
लववाह मात्र इस कारण से अलवलिमान्य नहीं होगा लक ऐसा
लववाह इस लनयमावली के अन्तगटत पंजीकृत नहीं कराया गया
है।"

7.
When
a
Hindu
marriage
is
solemnized
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in
order to facilitate proof of such marriage by
8 All. Sunil Dubey Vs. Minakshi
391
Section 8(1) of the Act, 1955, the State
Governments are empowered to make rules
for registration of such marriage. Such
Rules may provide for keeping over Hindu
Marriage Register wherein parties may
record the particulars of their marriage in
such manner and subject to such condition
as may be prescribed. The purpose of
registration is only to furnish a convenient
evidence of marriage.

8. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of Act,
1955
provides
that
Hindu
Marriage
Register will be admitted as evidence. Subsection (2) of Section 8 of Act, 1955
provides if the State Government deems it
proper,
it
can
make
registration
compulsory.
The
violation
of
this
requirement, however, would not affect the
validity of marriage.

9. By sub-Section (5) of Section 8 of
Act, 1955, it is provided that omission to
make an entry in pursuance of the
provisions of this Section does not,
however, affect the validity of marriage.
Thus, notwithstanding any Rules made in
pursuance of the provisions in sub-Section
(1) to (4) of Section 8 of Act, 1955 and due
to failure to make entry of the marriage in
the register, the validity of marriage is not
affected. In view of this Section, even
where the State Government makes rules
for compulsory registration of marriage,
there cannot be a Rule declaring marriage
invalid for want of registration. Even the
sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 of Rules, 2017
provides that marriage will not be invalid
for non-registration of marriage.

10. In case of Malati Dasi Vs. Japa
Hari
Pal
and
Ors
reported
in
MANU/WB/0363/1989,
Calcutta
High
Court in paragraph No. 10 of the judgment
has held as under:-

"10.
Mr.
Sengupta's
second
contention that since the marriage has been
registered under Section 8 of the Hindu
Marriage Act the Certificate Ext. 2 has
conclusively proved the second marriage in
this case. The provision for registration of
a Hindu Marriage was made to provide a
separate mode of proving the marriage. We
have already indicated that even if the
accused admits a second marriage that
may not be sufficient to warrant, a
conviction under Section 494 I.P.C. It has
to be established in evidence that the
second marriage during the subsistence of
the first marriage has been solemnized as
contemplated by law. If admission is
insufficient to prove the second marriage
only a certificate of marriage issued by the
Marriage Registrar under Section 8 of the
Hindu Marriage Act cannot sufficiently
establish the marriage to warrant a
conviction under Section 494 I.P.C. Ext. 2
will indicate that the marriage was
registered at the instance of the accused. At
best it can be construed as his admission or
marriage with Malati. But whether it was a
marriage solemnized properly would not be
proved by that certificate alone."

11. In case of R. Anita Marginic Vs.
R. Annadurai reported in 1992(1) HLR
509, High Court of Madras had held in
paragraph No. 10 of the judgment as
under:-

"10. When the factum of marriage
is
disputed,
evidence
regarding
performance of marriage according to
Hindu rites must be brought on record to
show that there had been a valid marriage.
The registration is not the sole proof of
marriage in order to become a valid
marriage. Reference can be usefully made
to the decision of the Calcutta High Court,
reported in Mousumi Chakraborty v.
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Subrata Guha Royd (1991) 2 CCC 401. In
the said decision a Division Bench of the
Calcutta High Court has held as follows:

In this particular case, the
appellant had filed a suit stating that there
had been no marriage at all between her
and the respondent. On the contrary, the
respondent claimed that there was a valid
marriage. It is well settled principle that
the burden of proof lies upon the party who
substantially asserts the affirmative of the
issue. The evidential burden in matrimonial
case is that the burden is on the proponent,
or in other words, the party who claims
that there was a valid marriage, has to
prove that marriage. The question is
whether
the
production
of
marriage
registration
certificate
raises
a
presumption and even if a presumption is
there, whether the same could be rebutted.
Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
provides Hindu Marriages registration has
been introduced for the purpose of
facilitating the proof of Hindu Marriage.
The registration is not the sole proof of
marriage in order to become a valid
marriage. Section 7 of the said Act
provides that the validity of a marriage will
depend on observance of "customary rites
and ceremonies."

12. In case of P. Kamakshi alias
Kala Jacob Vs. P. Devaki and others
reported in 2000(2) MLJ 564, Madras
High Court in paragraph No. 34 of the
judgment has held as under:-

"34. Merely because a marriage
has not been registered under Hindu
Marriage Act, it does not follow that in fact
marriage has not taken place. To register
the marriage is only for the purpose of
evidence to prove the fact of marriage
which has already taken place. An omission
to register marriage will not invalidate
marriage if in fact a marriage ceremony
was performed. I take guidance to have the
above view in view of the decision reported
in Janaki Amma v. Rama Warier, 1985
K.L.T. 283, where learned Judge held
omission to register marriage under Kerala
Nair Act does not render a marriage
invalid."

13. In case of Varindra Singh and
another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in 2005 (2) HLR 544, Rajasthan High
Court in paragraph No. 22 of the judgment
has held as under:-

"22. Apart from the above, it will
be worthwhile to mention here that Section
8 of the Act of 1955 only provides that for
the purpose of facilitating the proof of
Hindu marriage, the State Government may
make rules providing the parties to any
such marriage may have the particulars in
relation to there marriage entered in such
manner and subject to such conditions as
may
be
prescribed.
Therefore,
the
certificate itself is not a conclusive proof of
the marriage and as per Sub-section 1 of
the Section 8 itself, it is only a certificate of
"facilitating
the
proof
of
Hindu
Marriages."

14. The Supreme Court in case of
Seema (SMT) Vs. Ashwani Kumar
reported in (2006) 2 SCC 578, in paragraph
Nos. 15 and 16 of the judgment has held as
under:-

"15. As is evident from narration
of facts though most of the States have
framed rules regarding registration of
marriages, registration of marriage is not
compulsory in several States. If the record
of marriage is kept, to a large extent, the
dispute
concerning
solemnization
of
8 All. Sunil Dubey Vs. Minakshi
393
marriages between two persons is avoided.
As rightly contended by the National
Commission, in most cases non registration
of marriages affects the women to a great
measure. If the marriage is registered it
also provides evidence of the marriage
having taken place and would provide a
rebuttable presumption of the marriage
having
taken
place.
Though,
the
registration itself cannot be a proof of valid
marriage per se, and would not be the
determinative factor regarding validity of a
marriage, yet it has a great evidentiary
value in the matters of custody of children,
right of children born from the wedlock of
the two persons whose marriage is
registered and the age of parties to the
marriage. That being so, it would be in the
interest of the society if marriages are
made
compulsorily
registrable.
The
legislative intent in enacting Section 8 of
the Hindu Act is apparent from the use of
the
expression
"for
the
purpose
of
facilitating the proof of Hindu Marriages".

16. As a natural consequence, the
effect of non registration would be that the
presumption which is available from
registration of marriages would be denied
to a person whose marriage is not
registered."

15. The Supreme Court in case of
Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal
reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 387 has
held in paragraph No. 19 as under:-

"19. 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 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."
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. This Court in case of Maharaj
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another in
Application U/S 482 No. 38746 of 2024
decided on 8.04.2025 has held as under in
paragraph No. 8 of the judgment as under:-

"8. The Apex Court in the case of
Seema Vs. Ashwini Kumar, (2006) 2 SCC
578 directed to all the State Governments
that marriage of all persons who are
citizens of India should be compulsorily
registrable irrespective of their religion
and in pursuance of the direction of the
Apex Court in the case of Seema Vs.
Ashwini Kumar (supra) U.P. Registration
of Marriage Rules 2017 were framed by the
Governor of U.P. in exercise of his power
under Article 154 r.w.s. 162 of the
Constitution of India. As per the Marriage
Registration Rules 2017, registration of
marriage has been made compulsory
irrespective of the religion of the parties to
the marriage, and there is also a provision
for
issuing
a
marriage
registration
certificate. The above marriage certificate
facilitates prima facie proof of factum of
marriage. However, it is subject to the
condition that the marriage registration
certificate
should
be
obtained
after
performing a valid marriage in accordance
with the law. Therefore if the marriage
between two Hindus was not performed in
accordance with the procedure mentioned
in section-7 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
even then, the marriage registration
certificate issued under the Rules of 2017
will not be a substantive proof of
marriage."

17. Thus, from the laws as laid down
by various High Courts including this
Court as well as the Supreme Court, it is
settled that registration certificate is only an
evidence to prove the marriage and absence
of registration of marriage will not
invalidate the marriage in view of subSection 5 of Section 8 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

18. Coming to the facts of the present
case, the petition for divorce has been filed
under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 seeking divorce by mutual
consent. There is no dispute between the
parties regarding factum of marriage, rather
the same is admitted. The insistence of the
court below for filing the registration
certificate relying upon sub-Rule 3(a) of
the Hindu Marriage Divorce Rules, 1956
dated 18.09.1956 is uncalled for.

19. In the case of Sangram Singh
versus Election Tribunal Kotah AIR
1955 SCC425, the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
has held that the Code of Procedure must
be regarded as such. It is "procedure",
something designed to facilitate justice and
further its end. Not a penal indictment for
punishment and penalties. Not a thing
designed to trip people up. Too technical
construction of sections that leaves no
room
for
reasonable
elasticity
of
interpretation should therefore be guarded
against, provided always that justice is
done to both sides lest, the very means
designed for furtherance of justice. It has
also been held that our laws of procedure
are grounded on a principle of natural
justice. The relevant paragraph nos. 16 and
17 of the case of Sangram Singh (supra) are
being reproduced as under:-

"16. Now a code of procedure
must be regarded as such. It is ''procedure',
something designed to facilitate justice and
further its ends: not a penal enactment for
punishment and penalties; not a thing
designed to trip people up. Too technical a
construction of sections that leaves no
room
for
reasonable
elasticity
of
8 All. Sunil Dubey Vs. Minakshi
395
interpretation should therefore be guarded
against (provided always that justice is
done to ''both' sides) lest the very means
designed for the furtherance of justice be
used to frustrate it."

"17 Next, there must be ever
present to the mind the fact that our laws of
procedure are grounded on a principle of
natural justice which requires that men
should not be condemned unheard, that
decisions should not be reached behind
their backs, that proceedings that affect
their lives and property should not continue
in their absence and that they should not be
precluded from participating in them. Of
course, there must be exceptions and where
they are clearly defined they must be given
effect to. But taken by and large, and
subject to that proviso, our laws of
procedure should be construed, wherever
that is reasonably possible, in the light of
that principle."

20. In Chinnammal and other versus
Arumugham (1990) 1 SCC 513 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
Code of Civil Procedure is body of
procedural laws designed to facilitate
justice and it should not be treated as
enactment providing for punishment and
penalties. The laws of procedure should be
so construed as to render justice wherever
reasonably possible. Paragraph nos. 16 and
17 of the aforesaid judgment are being
reproduced as under:-

"16.This is also the principle
underlying Section 144 of the CPC. It is the
duty of all the Courts as observed by the
Privy Council "as aggregate of those
tribunals" to take care that no act of the
court in the course of the whole of the
proceedings does an injury to the suitors in
the Court. The above passage was quoted
in the majority judgment of this Court in
A.R. Amtulay v. R.S. Nayak and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0002/1988MANU/SC/0002/198
8 : 1988CriLJ1661 . Mukherjee, J., as he
then was, after referring to the said
observation of Lord Cairns, said (at 672):

No man should suffer because of
the mistake of the Court. No man should
suffer a wrong by technical procedure of
irregularities. Rules or procedures are the
handmaids of justice and not the mistress of
the justice. Ex debito justitiae, we must do
justice to him. If a man has been wronged
so long as it lies within the human
machinery of administration of justice that
wrong must be remedied.

17. It is well to remember that the
CPC is a body of procedural law designed
to facilitate justice and it should not be
treated as an enactment providing for
punishments and penalties. The laws of
procedure should be so construed as to
render
justice
wherever
reasonably
possible. It is in our opinion, not
unreasonable to demand restitution from a
person who has purchased the property in
court auction being aware of the pending
appeal against the decree."

21. In the case of Ghanshyam Das
versus Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 46,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
our laws of procedure are based on the
principle that as far as possible no
proceedings in a court of law should be
allowed
to
be
defeated
on
their
technicalities. In the case of Sukhveer
Singh versus Brijpal Singh (1997) 2 SCC
200 it was held that procedure is the
handmaid to substantial rights.

22. In the case of Salem Advocate
Bar Association versus Union of India
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reported in AIR 2005 SCC 3353, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the
rule and procedure are handmaid of justice
and not its mistress. It is relevant to
reproduce Paragraph 21 of the report as
under:-

"21. The use of the word ''shall'
in Order VII Rule 1 by itself is not
conclusive to determine whether the
provision is mandatory or directory. We
have to ascertain the object which is
required to be served by this provision
and its design and context in which it is
enacted. The use of the word ''shall' is
ordinarily indicative of mandatory
nature of the provision but having
regard to the context in which it is
used
or
having
regard
to
be
construed as directory. The rule in
question has to advance the cause of
justice and not to defeat it. The rules
of procedure are made to advance
the cause of justice and not defeat it.
Construction
of
the
rule
or
procedure which promotes justice
and prevents miscarriage has to be
preferred. The rules or procedure
are hand-maid of justice and not its
mistress. In the present context, the
strict interpretation would defeat
justice."

23. Rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage
and
Divorce
Rules,
1956
dated
18.09.1956 framed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is quoted as
under:

"3. Petition- (a) Every petition
under the Act shall be accompanied by a
certified extract from the Hindu Marriage
Register maintained under section 8 of
the Act, where the marriage has been
registered under this Act.

b...."

24. Even the sub-Rule (a) of Rule 3
of Rules, 1956 provides that the petition
under Hindu Marriage Act shall be
accompanied by a certified extract from
Hindu Marriage Register maintained
under Section 8 of the Act where the
marriage has been registered under this
Act.
The
requirement
of
filing
registration certificate is only in cases
where the marriage is registered under
Section 8 of Act. Admittedly, in the
present case, the marriage which was
solemnized in the year 2010 is not
registered and therefore, there is no
necessity of filing registration certificate.

25. In view of the laws laid down by
the Supreme Court and also in view of
sub-Rule (a) of Rule 3 of Rules, 1956, I
am of the view that insistence by the
Principal Judge, Family Court for filing
the
marriage
certificate
is
wholly
uncalled for and therefore, the order
passed by the court below is liable to be
set aside.

26. Accordingly, the petition is
allowed and order dated 31.07.2025 is set
aside.

27. Since the petition for mutual
divorce is pending since 2024, Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.
1, Azamgarh is directed to consider and
decide the aforesaid pending proceeding,
in accordance with law, expeditiously,
after giving opportunity of hearing to the
parties
concerned
as
well
as
an
opportunity to lead evidence in support of
their
case
and
without
granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties provided that there is no other
legal impediment, keeping in view the
8 All. Bhookan Saran Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Thru. Chairman And M.D. & Anr.
397
statutory mandate of Section 21-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 397
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 61 of 2021

Bhookan Saran ...Applicant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Thru.
Chairman And M.D. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Archit Mehrotra, Agendra Sinha, Manish
Pandey, Nikhil Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vikas Budhwar, Shikhar Anand

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the petition under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking
appointment of an arbitrator, is maintainable
despite a delay of over nine years from the date
of cause of action.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 - Section - 11(6), - Limitation
Act, 1963 - Section - 5- Application under
Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 - Applicant is a
dealership firm - running dealership of HPCL
- dealership dispute - HPCL terminated the
dealership - as agreement, petitioner invoked
arbitration clause - but failed to respond to
HPCL's proposed arbitrator due to personal
reasons, including his wife's illness and death
- Nearly eight years later, again sought
appointment of an arbitrator - but HPCL
rejected requests as time-barred - Application
under Section 11(6) of the Act, 1996 filed -
initially application was dismissed for nonprosecution
-
but
later
restored
after
condonation of delay, as well as after
substitution of legal heirs of the applicant -
Court finds that, the Application is barred by
limitation and the petitioner has been unable
to explain the cause for delay of over nine
years and the ground shown does not fall
within the exceptional circumstances, which
may persuade this court to entertain the
petition - held - in the light of decision of
Apex Court in case of 'HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v.
Shahaji
Bhanudas
Bhad'
no
case
for
interference is made out - hence, petition is
dismissed as barred by limitation. (Para - 25,
27)
Application Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas
Bhad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3190; Geo Miller
and Company Private Limited v. Chairman,
Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam, (2020) 14
SCC 643; Secunderabad Cantonment Board v.
B. Ramachandraiah and others, (2021) 5 SCC
705; B and T AG v. Ministry of Defence, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 657; H. Guruswamy & Ors. v.
A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54;
Thirunagalingam v. Lingeswaran, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1093.

LIST OF ACTS
Arbitration
and
Conciliation
Act,
1996,
Limitation Act, 1963.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Arbitration - Dismissed for Non-prosecution -
Limitation - Delay Condonation - Substitution
- Dealership - termination - Exceptional
circumstances - Cause of action - barred by
limitation.

CASE ARISING FROM
Termination of dealership agreement dated
09.01.1991
between
Bhookan
Saran
(petitioner)
and
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. (respondent), followed by
invocation
of
arbitration
clause
and
subsequent delay in pursuing arbitration.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Agendra Sinha.
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Shikhar Anand.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)