The Patna High Court has held that a person's name appearing as a spouse in the voter list does not, by itself, prove a valid Hindu marriage. Where the marriage itself is disputed, the party asserting it must prove that the marriage was solemnised through the rites and ceremonies required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman against a Family Court judgment which had declared that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

The appellant's case was that she was earlier married to the respondent's elder brother, Suresh Chaudhary. After his death in 1997, she claimed to have married the respondent, his younger brother, in Baishakh 2002. She had subsequently obtained an order of maintenance from the Family Court.

The respondent later filed a title suit seeking a declaration that no marriage had taken place between them and that the appellant was not his legally wedded wife. The Family Court allowed the suit after finding that the alleged marriage had not been proved to have been solemnised according to Hindu rites and rituals.

Before the High Court, the central question was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a legally valid marriage between the parties. The Court referred to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and said that a Hindu marriage must be performed with the applicable customary rites and ceremonies. Where those rites include saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete upon the seventh step.

The Bench found serious gaps in the appellant's evidence. None of her witnesses stated when the alleged marriage took place or whether it was performed in their presence. The appellant herself did not disclose the date or place of marriage, the rituals performed, or even the names of the priest and barber who allegedly participated in the ceremony. There was also no evidence about saptapadi or sindurdaan, which the Court described as vital aspects of the alleged Hindu marriage.

The Court also rejected reliance on the earlier maintenance order. It said that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC concern maintenance and do not determine the validity of a marriage. On the voter-list entries relied upon by the appellant, the Bench observed:

“Even, merely on the basis of names/entries made in the voter-list, one cannot claim validity with respect to solemnization of marriage between the parties. Entries made in the voter-list is not a conclusive proof with respect to any kind of valid or subsisting marriage, save and except the oral evidence, no other corroborative piece of evidence, which could indisputably evince the factum of marriage being solemnized between the appellant and the respondent in accordance with Hindu religious rights and rituals, have not been brought on record...”

The High Court ultimately held that the appellant had failed to prove the factum of marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. In the absence of clinching evidence establishing a valid matrimonial relationship, it refused to interfere with the Family Court's judgment.

Case Title: Durgawati Devi v. Sachita Chaudhary @ Sachitanand Yadav

Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 316 of 2021

Appearance: Mr. Bijay Shankar Choubey and Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh for the Appellant; Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order