Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava   has held that the marriage certificate having no mention of Saptapati is not a proof for the solemnization of marriage. 

What was the Background of the Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava Case? 

• In the present case, the appellant was a minor and the defendant was a Guru at Lucknow. 
• The appellant and her family were the followers of Guruji, the defendant except her father. 
• It was alleged by the appellant that one day the defendant gave her and her mother a Prasad and after consuming it they lost consciousness and during that time the defendant made them sign some documents. 
• Right after two days of the incident the defendant called appellant’s father and informed him that the appellant and him are married and have registered marriage. 
• The father of the appellant then filed the First Information report under Section 419, 420, 496 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellant filed a suit against the defendant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) as she never agreed for happening of marriage with the defendant. 
• Defendant filed a suit under Section 9 of HMA, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. 
• The Trial court decreed the marriage in favor of the defendant as there were contradictions in statements of the witnesses also no medical examination was conducted for the daughter and mother if they had Prasad which made them unconscious. 
• Also, that the appellant could not prove that she was not present in Arya Samaj at the time when the alleged marriage was solemnized.   
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the appellant filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that the appellant never agreed that the marriage was solemnized, and that allegation cannot be held as admission towards marriage. 
• It was further held by the High Court that relying on father’s statements, who was not present when the incident happened, cannot be binding upon appellant and her mother’s statement. 
• In addition to it the High court held that the burden of proof that the marriage was solemnized based on Hindu customs and rites is on the defendant. 
• It was further added by the High Court, that certificate from Arya Samaj is not a sufficient proof that the marriage was solemnized by performing all the Hindu customs and rites of marriage. 
• Hence the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed that the marriage was a fraudulent act and held the marriage null and void. 

What is Arya Samaj? 

• About: 
  • Arya Samaj is a Hindu reform movement founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati. 
  • The aim is to promote Vedas, Dharma and Satya for the Nobel society. 
  • It is the first human organization worked to enhance the civil rights movement. 
• Arya Samaj Marriages: 
  • The marriages are solemnized as per Vedic rituals. 
  • It is an alternate method of marriage to the Hindu rituals. 
  • It holds significance for married couples. 
• Eligibility For an Arya Samaj Mandir: 
  • The girl must be at least 18 years old and the boy at least 21 years old. 
  • To solemnize an Arya Samaj Marriage, the couple must be from Hindu, Sikhism, Buddhism or Jain religion. 
  • An individual belonging to Muslim, Jain, Christian or Parsi religion cannot solemnize an Arya Samaj Marriage. 
  • Inter Caste Marriages and Inter Religion Marriages are also performed in an Arya Samaj, if none of the individuals is Christian, Parsi, Jew or Muslim. 
  • The individuals belonging to Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew religion can also solemnize an Arya Samaj Marriage, if they voluntarily perform a ritual called Shuddhi. 
• Legality of Arya Samaj Marriage Certificate: 
  • Arya Samaj Marriage Certificates are legal. 
  • The marriage cannot be proved based on the certificate. 
  • There must be Hindu rituals and rites attached with the ceremony and with the issuance of certificate to proof the solemnization of valid marriage. 

What are Landmark Judgements on Arya Samaj Marriagess? 

• Ashish Morya v. Anamika Dhiman (2022): In this case, the High Court held that the marriage certificate of Arya Samaj is not proof of valid marriage.  
• Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024): In this case 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. 

What are Provisions of HMA, 1955 Referred in the Case of Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava Case? 

• Section 7: Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. — 
  • Clause (1) states that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.  
  • Clause (2) states that 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 9 : Restitution of conjugal right.— 
  • It states that when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.  
  • Explanation.—Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. 
• Section 12: Voidable marriages.— 
  • Clause (1) states that any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:—  
  • that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the imporence of the respondent. 
  • that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5. 
  • that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978 (2 of 1978)], the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the respondent.  
  • that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.  
• Clause (2) states that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no petition for annulling a marriage—  
  • on the ground specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained if—  
    • the petition is presented more than one year after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered. 
    • the petitioner has, with his or her full consent, lived with the other party to the marriage as husband or wife after the force had ceased to operate or, as the case may be, the fraud had been discovered. 
  • on the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the court is satisfied—  
    • that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged. 
    • that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this Act within one year of such commencement and in the case of marriages solemnised after such commencement within one year from the date of the marriage. 
    • that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the said ground.