Circumventing Marriage Law

 

 

 

THROUGH the judgement of the case – VN & DG, delivered on October 9, 2025, at the Delhi High Court, Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar have very firmly stated that not only would permitting the present appeal or even upholding the maintainability of the underlying petition be an affront to our statutory scheme, but it could well become the chosen route such of the ingenious, who seek documentation in support of their nefarious intent, and thereafter, the interference of the judicial system to validate this mala fide. The HC is of the firm view that the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), particularly those concerning declarations of nullity, voidable marriages, divorce and judicial separation, must be strictly construed and applied.

 

The petition and now the appeal before the Court, which seeks to carve out a remedy wholly outside the statutory framework, though ingenious, is not only legally tenable but also depreciable. The appeal in this case is filed under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, read with section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, impugning the judgment of October 4, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket (District-South), New Delhi. By the impugned judgment, the Family Court dismissed the joint petition filed by the parties herein, Husband and Wife, under section 7 of the HMA, which sought a decree declaring their alleged marriage of January 30, 2024, as null and void, along with a declaration that the certificate of February 2, 2024 issued by the office of District Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi and the certificate of January 30, 2024 by the Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Bandhan Trust, Delhi are null and void. The Principal ground on which the parties sought relief that the statutory requirements of section 7 of the HMA were not satisfied at the time of the alleged marriage, and consequently, no valid marriage subsisted between the parties in the eyes of the law.

 

It was thus contended that due to non-compliance with section 7, the rites and ceremonies performed did not give rise to a legally binding Hindu marriage. At the very outset, It appeared to the HC that the Joint Petition Application before the Family Court or the present appeal rising therefrom, appears to be a novel and ingenious method devised with the intent of circumventing the statutory rigours set out in the HMA. It seeks to create a new genre of void marriages over and beyond what has been provided for in the Act. The HC’s view is that no petition under any provision of HMA is maintainable solely on the ground that the requirements of section 7 have not been fulfilled, jointly or otherwise. The Court’s view found further re- enforcement in the deeply rooted understanding that marriage in Indian society, is not merely a civil contract between two individuals but is regarded as a sacred and solemn sacrament , carrying profound social, cultural and moral significance.

 

The institution of marriage is accorded a place of sanctity binding not only the parties but also their families and the larger community. In this backdrop provisions of the HMA, which permit the separation of a married couple through various means as envisaged by the statute, inter alia annulment of marriage through a decree of nullity,, divorce etc. must necessarily be construed in a strict and limited manner. Such relief can be invoked only on the specific grounds expressly provided by the statute. To allow broader or liberal interpretations would risk trivializing the sanctity of marriage and undermining the legislative intent of preserving its dignity, stability and permanence except in clearly defined circumstances. Pointing out the lack of evidence in the case, in support of the contentions advanced by the appellant the HC stated that the parties have not examined the Pandit, who allegedly performed the marriage nor the person, who has signed the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir. It is well settled that a party approaching the Court must place before it all relevant material necessary to substantiate its case. Mere assertions by the parties are insufficient in matters of this nature.

 

It cannot be treated lightly or with disregard, as appears to be the case, in this matter. The Court has further noted that there is a clear admission by the parties that the marriage was performed largely for convenience and further that all rituals and ceremonies were discarded solely to obtain a marriage certificate, thereby creating a façade of being married. The appellant’s claim that the Saptapadi ceremony was not performed imposes a significant evidentiary burden upon them. It is well established that the presumption of marriage is not weakened merely due to the absence of direct evidence proving that the Saptapadi was performed. Even minimal evidence indicating that the parties went through a form of marriage re-enforces the presumption of validity. Not a shred of evidence has been brought on record by the appellants of having differences of opinion between them, which led to the decision to litigate for dissolution of marriage. In absence of any evidence to this effect, the HC found it difficult to accept that that there are any bona fides in the averments made in the petition as well as the appeal.

 

The HC has also concurred with the observations of the Family Court that if petitions or appeals of this nature were to be entertained, they would create a dangerous precedent by offering a novel and impermissible means of circumventing the statutory framework governing matrimonial reliefs under the HMA. In the light of facts, circumstances and settled principles of law, the HC has firm opinion that this appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. The HC has observed further that both the petition and appeal in this case are the product of sheer ingenuity, a complete misadventure, and a misguided attempt to turn the settled law on its head. Courts cannot lend its approval to such devices that undermine the sanctity of the statutory scheme and established judicial principles. The HC has said as it has found no infirmity or error in the impugned judgement of October 4, 2024 passed by the Family Court, it has dismissed the appeal in its entirety.