Hindu Marriage Not 'Solemnised' Unless 'Saptapadi' Ceremony (Saat Phere) Performed Between Parties: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a Hindu marriage cannot be 'solemnised' unless the 'Saptapadi' ceremony (taking of seven steps by the the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire) and other rituals have been performed. With this, the bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh allowed a petition filed by one Smriti Singh challenging the entire proceedings of a complaint filed against her by her husband under Sections 494 (Bigamy) and 109 (Punishment of abetment) IPC. Essentially, the Complainant alleged that Singh/Applicant was his wife and they got married in June 2017, however, in September 2017, she sanctified her second marriage with another person and now, she is living with her second husband without taking a divorce from the complainant. A Magistrate Court, after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and his witnesses, summoned the applicants as well as other co-accused persons, challenging the same, the Applicant and others moved the HC. It was the applicant’s case that the complaint filed by her husband was a counter-blast case as she had already lodged an FIR against the complainant and his family members. She further denied solemnisation of marriage with any other person. Importantly, it was argued that in the complaint and statements of the complainant as well as witnesses, there was no assertion regarding the 'solemnization' of marriage and ceremony of 'Saptapadi' as per Section 7(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, it was argued that no offence under Sections 494 and 109 IPC was made against the applicants. High Court’s observations At the outset, perusing the averments made in the application of the complainant regarding the allegation of second marriage against applicant no. 1, the Court found that the allegation was investigated by the police officials and the same was found false. Further, so far as the second marriage was concerned, the Court noted that it is well settled that in connection with a marriage, the word 'solemnize' means 'to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form' and hence, the Court observed, unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be 'solemnized'. Further, it stressed that if the marriage is not a valid marriage, according to the law applicable to the parties, it is not a marriage in the eyes of the law. The Court was also of the view that to constitute an offence under Section 494 IPC, it is necessary that the second marriage should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form. Noting that the parties before the Court are Hindus and that the 'Saptapadi' ceremony under the Hindu Law is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage, the Court said that evidence regarding the performance of the Saptapadi ceremony in the alleged second marriage was lacking in the present case. “Where marriage is disputed, it is not enough to find that marriage took place leaving it to be presumed that rites and ceremonies necessary to constitute a legal marriage were performed. In absence of cogent evidence in this regard, it is difficult to hold that the ' Saptapadi ceremony' of the marriage as contended by the complainant was performed so as to constitute a valid marriage between the parties concerned,” the Court observed. The bench also took into account the fact that there was no averment with regard to 'Saptapadi' in the complaint as well as in the statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. In view of this, taking into consideration the contents of the complaint on its face value, the Court found that the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 494 read with Section 109 of IPC were lacking and hence, no offence is made out against the applicants. Consequently, terming the criminal proceedings against the as “nothing but a malicious prosecution with an ulterior motive”, the Court quashed the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants in order to secure the ends of justice. Appearances Counsel for Applicant: Shri Prakash Dwivedi, Saurabh Sachan Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Ajatshatru Pandey Case title - Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23148 of 2022] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 361 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Hindu Marriage Not 'Solemnised' Unless 'Saptapadi' Ceremony (Saat Phere) Performed Between Parties: Allahabad High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags