Marriages Solemnised At Arya Samaj Temples With Vedic Or Other Hindu Rites Valid Under Hindu Marriage Act : Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that in Arya Samaj Mandir, marriages are conducted according to the Vedic procedure, which includes Hindu customs and rites like Kanyadan, Panigrahan, Saptapadi, and chanting of Mantras while applying vermilion and these ceremonies fulfil the requirements of Section 7 of 1955 Act.

The Court also clarified that though a certificate issued by Arya Samaj may not have a statutory force of prima facie validity of marriage, such certificates are not 'waste paper' as they can be proved by the Purohit (who performed the marriage) as per the provisions of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, during the trial of the case.

With these observations, the single judge dismissed a plea moved by one Maharaj Singh seeking quashing of a case filed by his wife under Section 498-A IPC.

It was the applicant's argument in the Court that since his alleged marriage with opposite party no. 2 was solemnised in an Arya Samaj Temple, the same cannot be construed as a valid marriage. Hence, he was not liable to face charges under Section 498-A IPC.

It was also his argument that, actually, no marriage was performed in the Arya Samaj Temple and that the marriage certificate filed by his wife, purportedly issued by Arya Samaj, was forged and concocted.

On the other hand, the AGA opposed his plea as he submitted that from the perusal of the statement of opposite party no. 2 as well as her witness (Purohit), who had performed the marriage, there was sufficient evidence on record that the marriage was performed as per Hindu Customs and Rites.

It was also argued that merely because the marriage has been performed in the Arya Samaj Mandir, the same will not become invalid.

At the outset, the Court referred to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and observed that a marriage solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of Hinduism shall be valid irrespective of the place of solemnisation (be it a temple, house, or any open space).

Furthermore, the Court elaborated on the historical and cultural context of Hindu marriage as it noted that "Hindu religion, which is also known as Sanatan Dharma (meaning 'Eternal Dharma'), is the oldest religion in the world."

The single judge also acknowledged that Hinduism is a dynamic and evolving tradition, which has always been open to reform.

Further, the Court also highlighted the reformist legacy of Arya Samaj, as it observed thus:

"Arya Samaj is also a mission founded by great Sant and reformer Swami Dayanand Saraswati on April 10, 1875 in Bombay. It was a monotheistic Hindu reform movement which believes in one God and opposes caste system based upon birth."

The Court further explained that "Vedic marriage is considered as the most traditional form of Hindu marriage," characterised by specific rituals such as Kanyadan, Panigrahan, and Saptapadi performed with the chanting of Vedic Mantras.

“Hindu marriages encompass a broad range of practices across different regions and communities, with some incorporating Vedic rituals. It can also include regional customs and traditions. The core of both is the sacred union of two individuals, but the Vedic marriage particularly emphasises on ancient rituals and sacred traditions. Vedic marriage is considered as the most traditional form of Hindu marriage. Vedic marriage rooted in the Vedas, is specific type of Hindu wedding characterized by special rituals, and Mantras, often conducted in Sanskrit. In Vedic marriage, rituals of Kanyadan, Panigrahan and Saptapadi are performed often with the Hymn of Vedas.”

Thus, opining that if marriages are performed with Vedic rituals even in Arya Samaj Temples, the same would be valid as long as the requirements of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act are fulfilled.

Reverting to the facts of the case, the Court considered the statements of the first informant and the Arya Samaj Purohit, as per which the marriage of applicant no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 was performed in Radha Rani Mandir of Arya Samaj as per Hindu customs and rites.

Hence, the Court added, prima facie, it was sufficient to presume the marriage was valid despite non-registration under the Rules, 1973 or Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. The Court stressed that such non-registration does not render a valid marriage invalid.

With this, the plea was dismissed as the Court observed that the applicant's contention regarding invalidity of the Arya Samaj marriage was misconceived and, the same being a disputed question of fact, cannot be considered at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.