Case Study: Shruti Agnihotri v. Anand Kumar Srivastava

By Yousuf Khan 10 Minutes Read

“A certificate of marriage is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when such a marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no marriage ceremony performed at all.”

Citation: 2024: AHC-LKO: 45639-DB

Date of Judgment: 5th July, 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench)

Bench: Rajan Roy (J), Om Prakash Shukla (J)

Facts

• The appellant, a minor female resident of Lucknow and her family were devotees of the respondent, a baba, with the exception of her father.
• The respondent provided the appellant and her mother with Prasad, after consuming which they claimed to have lost consciousness. During this alleged unconscious state, the respondent purportedly made the appellant and her mother sign certain documents.
• Two days post the incident, the respondent informed the appellant’s father of their alleged marriage and its registration. The appellant’s father lodged a First Information Report against the respondent under Sections 419, 420, and 496 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellant initiated a suit under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, contending that the marriage with the respondent was involuntary and without her consent. The respondent filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Decision of the Trial Court

• The trial court decreed the marriage in favour of the respondent. The court found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the appellant’s witnesses.
• The absence of medical evidence to corroborate the claim of unconsciousness due to Prasad consumption was cited as a reason for the decision. The appellant was unable to substantiate her claim of absence from the Arya Samaj during the alleged marriage ceremony. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the appellant challenged the decision before the Allahabad High Court.

Decision of the High Court

The High Court concluded that the appellant consistently denied the marriage, and the burden of proving that the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and customs rested with the respondent. The respondent’s failure to provide such evidence led the Court to dismiss the suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

Furthermore, the Court held that the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar of Hindu Marriages lacked any legal significance in this context, as they did not prove the performance of the essential ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal formalities and customs in the solemnization of marriages under Hindu law.

“In other words, a certificate of marriage is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when such a marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no marriage ceremony performed at all.” [Shruti Agnihotri vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava, Para 30]

Key legal issues discussed

1. Whether any marriage was solemnized between the appellant (Shruti Agnihotri) and the respondent (Anand Kumar Srivastava) as per Hindu rites and customs in terms of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

No

The Court held that no valid marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs. The respondent failed to produce any credible evidence that the essential ceremonies, such as saptapadi, were performed, which are necessary to constitute a valid Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the Act. It has been held in the said judgment that in absence of there being any rites and ceremonies, without satpadi wherever required in custom, there would be no legal marriage as contemplated under section 7 of the Act.

Quoting para 27 of the Judgement, the Court entirely relied on the precedents of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal^[1] and held that “It has been categorically held in the said judgment that in absence of there being any such marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, a certificate issued in that regard by any entity is of no legal consequence.”

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that marriage between the appellant and the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs in terms of Section 7 of the Act, 1955 itself is not proved and the trial Court has gravely erred in not considering this aspect of the matter which was implicit in the issues framed by it.” (Para 40)

2. Whether the alleged marriage between the appellant and respondent was fraudulently procured?

Yes

The Court found that the alleged marriage was fraudulently procured. The appellant never gave her free and informed consent for the marriage, and the documents presented by the respondent were found to be insufficient to prove a valid marriage. The appellant’s testimony consistently pointed to deceit and manipulation by the respondent.

There were several documents produced by the appellant which went on to show that the exercise of her signing the document was indeed induced by fraud. ”The alleged marriage, based on the aforesaid documents has rightly been claimed by the appellant to be a fraudulent exercise.” (Para 41)

3. Whether the respondent is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

No

Since the Court found that no valid marriage had taken place between the parties, the respondent’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights was unsustainable. Restitution of conjugal rights can only be granted if there is a valid marriage, which was not proven in this case.

Discussing on the facts as laid out in the case, the court held that “In the absence of a valid Hindu marriage, there was no way that the suit of the respondent/defendant under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 could have been decreed, especially, in the manner in which it has been done, without discussing any of the prerequisites which are required to be satisfied under the said provision.” (Para 40)

4. Whether the certificates issued by Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar of Marriages prove the validity of the marriage?

No

The certificates issued by Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar of Marriages were found to be insufficient to prove the validity of the marriage. These documents alone do not constitute proof that the essential Hindu marriage ceremonies, such as saptapadi, were performed, and therefore, cannot establish the existence of a lawful marriage. The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal^[2], where it was held that a marriage certificate issued by an entity like Vadik Jankalayan Samiti under the U.P. Registration Rules, 2017 is not legally valid unless the marriage was conducted in accordance with Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court reaffirmed that in the absence of evidence showing the performance of customary rites, a marriage certificate alone has no legal consequence.

“Thus, the Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir, Ganeshganj, Lucknow does not by itself prove marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent/defendant. None of the certificates mention about the ceremonies which were performed. Merely mentioning that marriage was performed as per vaidik rites itself does not prove marriage between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant.” (Para 33)

^[1] 2024 (SC) 334.

^[2] Ibid.

Yousuf Khan