.jpg)
Yuvraj Pandey
University of Allahabad
INTRODUCTION:
The Supreme Court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih in the recent case of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024) held that “a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies being performed does not constitute a valid Hindu marriage”.
Emphasizing that a Hindu marriage is a sacred institution of significant value in Indian society, a panel of Judges led by B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, in a ruling dated April 19, encouraged young individuals to deeply contemplate the sanctity of marriage before entering into it.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The spouses were trained commercial pilots who got engaged in March, 2021 and claimed that their marriage was solemnised on 7 July, 2021 however an actual marriage ceremony was to be taken place in October, 2021 but it wasn’t organised.
They obtained a marriage certificate from the Vadik Jankalyan Samiti and a “certificate of registration of marriage” under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
Further the Wife (petitioner) filed an FIR under various sections of IPC and CrPC where she alleged upon the (husband) respondent’s family the charges of dowry demand and harassment.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS:
The bench observed that the Hindu marriage is not a mere event of dance and songs or wining and dining but it is a “samskar”, a ‘sacrament’.
The Hindu marriage has a great importance and holds great value in Indian society and the couples getting into it must think deep about safeguarding this importance of marriage as it is a solemn foundational event amongst the spouses.
The bench further said that “Hindu marriage must be performed as per the conditions of section 5 and the ceremonies must be arranged and performed as stated in the section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and mere registering the Hindu marriage under section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and getting the certificate from the Registrar won’t legalise the marriage because it lacks the conditions given under section 5 and Section 7 of the act as court said that marriage registration is done for the purpose of Proof of Factum in dispute cases but if the marriage is not done in accordance with the section 7 of the act them it will not be considered as legitimate marriage”.
The Supreme Court Bench while hearing the case held that “the Hindu Marriage is not an occasion of demanding “gifts and dowers” or not for mere commercial transactions. It establishes a relationship between a husband and wife for evolution of family, procreation of children and performance of religious rites (the essentials of marriage as per Rig Veda).[i]
The Hindu Marriage must be performed in accordance with the rites and ceremonies such as ‘Saptapadi’ (taking seven steps by the spouses before the sacred fire) where according to Rig Veda the bridegroom chants to his bride of being friends after completion of the seventh step and the wife after that moment is considered as the other half (Ardhangini) with her own identity and co-equal partnership in the marriage”.
The court held that there is no better half but equal half in the marriage. The court compared the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by defining their prerequisites as under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 the couples of any caste, religions, race and creed can marry and acquire the status of husband and wife but in under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the couples must stick to the requirements of Section 5 and Section 7 i.e. fulfil the conditions and perform the required rites and ceremonies.
The court observing the enactment of the act allows monogamy as the only legal relationship between the husband and wife and it prohibits polyandry or polygamy and all other similar type of such relationship.
The Act covers Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Lingayat, Brahmos etc who can enter into marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.[ii]
The court highlighting the importance of marriage said that it proves a lifelong dignity, equal consensual and healthy union of the spouses.
CONCLUSION:
The Court heard the case under Article 142 of the Constitution of India using its wider ambit.
Earlier also the court in the landmark Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh case emphasised on the essential that the marriage is to be celebrate with proper ceremonies as per the established customs of the parties and the existing laws[iii].
Finally, in this Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024) case the court quashed their divorce proceedings and a dowry case was lodged against the husband and his family members.
REFERENCES
[i]The Hindu (Hindu marriage not valid unless performed with requisite ceremonies: SC)
[ii]The Indian Express (Hindu marriage not valid ‘unless performed with ceremonies in proper form’: SC)
[iii] Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4th March, 1971.
Comments