Hindu marriage invalid without 7 phere of ritual: Allahabad HC

New Delhi: The Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings in a case where a man had alleged that his estranged wife had remarried without divorcing.

Admitting a petition filed by Smriti Singh, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh said that solemnized means a marriage which is “celebrated with proper ceremonies and in proper form”, adding that without the rituals, the marriage cannot be solemnized.

“If the marriage is not a valid marriage as per the law applicable to the parties, it is not a marriage in the eyes of law,” the court order said. The ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony is one of the essential ingredients for a valid marriage under Hindu law, but the said evidence is lacking in the present case.”

The order concluded from Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that a Hindu marriage is solemnized in accordance with the traditional rites and ceremonies of both the parties. It also states that the ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony (7 rounds jointly performed by the bride and groom around the sacred fire) is necessary as this seventh round completes the marriage and binds the bond.

The court also quashed the summons order and complaint proceedings of April 2022 before the Mirzapur court against the wife. “It is of the view that no prima facie offense is made out against the applicant as the allegation of second marriage is a baseless allegation without corroborating material,” the court said.

Background of the case

Petitioners Smriti Singh and Satyam Singh were married in 2017, but she left and filed a dowry case against her in-laws. After investigation, the police also submitted a charge sheet against the husband and in-laws. Satyam later alleged that his wife had remarried; And the Sadar Circle Office of Mirzapur investigated the claims. The allegations of bigamy were found to be false.

In September 2021, Satyam filed a complaint that his wife had sanctioned his second marriage and the concerned Mirzapur magistrate had summoned Smriti. The summoning order and the proceedings of the case were challenged citing a counter case filed by Satyam’s family members due to dowry complaint in their petition in the High Court.

(with agency input)