Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), for quashing the entire criminal proceeding pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, for a case under Sections 498-A, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J. held that when a marriage between two Hindus (male and female) is performed in accordance with the applicable rites and ceremonies of Hinduism, such a marriage will be valid, even if it is performed in an Arya Samaj Mandir, in a temple, house, or any open place. The place of the marriage is irrelevant under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. What is critical for the validity of the marriage is the adherence to Hindu customs and rites.
Background
The opposite party 2 had lodged an FIR against the applicant, alleging that she was the wife of the applicant and that, after their marriage, she had been subjected to harassment for dowry by him. Following investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet, which was under challenge in the present case.
The applicant submitted that the alleged marriage between the applicant and opposite party 2 had been solemnized in Arya Samaj, which, according to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Morya vs. Anamika Dhiman1, did not constitute a valid marriage.
Moreover, it was contended that the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj had no statutory force, as noted in the aforementioned Division Bench judgment. The applicant also submitted that, in fact, no marriage had been performed at Arya Samaj at all, and the alleged marriage certificate was forged and fabricated. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Issue
Whether the marriage performed in Arya Samaj Mandir would be valid?
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage between two Hindus who fulfilled the conditions laid down in Section 5 of the Act would be deemed complete and binding upon the performance of the procedure prescribed under Section 7. As per Section 7, a fundamental requirement for a valid Hindu marriage was that it must be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party. It was further observed that, if the customary practices of either party included the performance of Saptapadi (the seven steps around the sacred fire), the marriage would be considered complete and binding upon the completion of that ritual.
After taking note of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court observed that it was clear from the provision that customary rites and ceremonies could be solemnized at any place, whether in a temple, a house, or an open area. The Act did not prescribe any specific location for the solemnization of marriage, except that it must be performed in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party.
The Court further noted that Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the registration of Hindu marriages. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8, the State Government had framed the Uttar Pradesh Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973. According to Rule 4 of the said Rules, any Hindu party could apply for the registration of their marriage, and the particulars of the marriage would be recorded in the Hindu Marriage Register maintained in the office of the Registrar.
However, it was also noted that the Rules did not prescribe any specific proforma for a certificate of registration. The only requirement under the 1973 Rules was the issuance of a receipt acknowledging the submission of the application for registration of the marriage.
The Court highlighted that if a marriage between two Hindus was not performed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, then the mere issuance of a marriage registration certificate under the Uttar Pradesh Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 would not constitute substantive proof of a valid marriage.
The Court concluded that in the absence of compliance with the customary rites and ceremonies outlined in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the marriage could not be considered valid merely on the basis of a marriage certificate issued under the Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 or U.P. Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. It was emphasized that such certificates, though important for registration purposes, would not serve as substantive proof of the marriage’s validity unless the formalities required by law were duly followed. Therefore, the Court reaffirmed that only a marriage performed according to the prescribed rites would be legally binding and recognized as valid.
The Court clarified that, in the judgment of Ashish Morya (supra), while it had been observed that the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj was not per se a valid certificate, it did not hold that a marriage performed according to Hindu customs and rites on the premises of Arya Samaj would automatically be invalid. On the other hand, the Division Bench explicitly noted that it was an admitted fact that no Saptapadi (the seven steps) had been performed during the marriage ceremony, and for this reason, the marriage was declared invalid.
The Court remarked that Hindu marriages encompass a broad range of practices across different regions and communities, some of which incorporate Vedic rituals, while others follow regional customs and traditions. Despite the diversity, the core of all Hindu marriages remains the sacred union of two individuals. However, Vedic marriage, in particular, places emphasis on ancient rituals and sacred traditions. It is considered the most traditional form of Hindu marriage, deeply rooted in the Vedas. Furthermore, every Arya Samaj operates an Arya Samaj Mandir, where, instead of statues of various gods and goddesses, one typically finds photographs related to marriage ceremonies, portraits of Arya Samaj founders, and representations of the “Om” symbol. These mandirs serve not only as venues for marriages but also as places for other religious services and community events.
The Court concluded that, in view of the above facts, it was clear that a marriage solemnized in an Arya Samaj Mandir is conducted in accordance with the Vedic procedure, which includes Hindu customs and rites such as Kanyadan, Panigrahan, Saptapadi, and the chanting of mantras, along with the application of vermilion.
Therefore, the Court held that any marriage solemnized in an Arya Samaj Mandir, following the Vedic procedure, constitutes a valid marriage, as it fulfills the requirements of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. While the certificate issued by Arya Samaj may not carry the statutory force of prima facie proof of marriage, it is not to be dismissed as irrelevant. The certificate can be substantiated by the Purohit (who performed the marriage) in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, during the trial of the case.
Coming back to the case at hand, the Court observed that it was evident from the statements of the first informant as well as the Purohit of Arya Samaj, who solemnized the marriage of applicant and opposite party 2, that the marriage was performed at Radha Rani Mandir of Arya Samaj in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. Therefore, prima facie, this was sufficient to presume that the marriage between the parties was valid, despite the fact that the marriage had not been registered under the Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973 or the Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. The Court clarified that non-registration of a marriage does not render a validly solemnized marriage invalid. Accordingly, the contention raised by the applicant, that the alleged marriage between applicant and opposite party 2 performed in Arya Samaj was invalid, was found to be misconceived, and in any case, involved disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Upon perusal of the records, the Court noted that opposite party no. 2, in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, had made specific allegations of cruelty committed by the applicant. The Supreme Court, in the case of Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao, had categorically held that, to attract liability under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, a demand for dowry is not a necessary condition; mere cruelty inflicted upon the wife is sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC. In light of the above, the Court found no illegality or infirmity in the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, the present application was dismissed.
[Maharaj Singh v. State of UP, 2025 SCC OnLine All 2133, decided on 08-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Applicant:– Bhanu Prakash Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party:– G.A.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. First Appeal No. 830 of 2022