View source for Marriage and the law (Hindu): India

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br/>You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,<br />deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.<br/>Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;<br/>and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.<br/>
	
Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly <br/>  on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.

See [[examples]] and a tutorial.</div>
|}

[[Category: India |M]]
[[Category: Law,Constitution,Judiciary |M]]
[[Category: Society |M]]
[[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
 
=The nature of a Hindu marriage=
== Marriage under Hindu law is sacrament, not contract==
[http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31808&articlexml=COURT-UNTIES-THE-KNOTS-Marriage-under-Hindu-law-30012017002007  Marriage under Hindu law not a contract: HC, Jan 30, 2017: The Times of India]


Marriage under the Hindu law is “sacrament“ and “not a contract“ which can be entered into by executing a deed, the Delhi high court observed while dismissing a plea by a woman who had challenged an order refusing to declare her as the legally wedded wife.

The woman had approached the court seeking her appointment for a job on compassionate ground after the death of her alleged husband, a former sanitation staff in a city government hospital, and a direction to the medical superintendent to release consequential benefits and allow her to join duties.

HC noted in its judgment that the petitioner had contended that she had married the man by way of execution of a marriage deed in June 1990 without disputing the fact that he was living with his earlier wife, who had died in May 1994.

“Since inception, the contention of the appellant (woman) had been that her marriage with the man on June 2, 1990 was performed by way of execution of a marriage deed and an affidavit. It is not disputed by her that the man had a living spouse on June 2, 1990 and she expired on May 11, 1994. “Under Hindu Law, marriage is a `sacrament' (solemn pledge) and not a contract which can be entered into by execution of a marriage deed,“ Justice Pratibha Rani said.

==No employment on compassionate grounds for ‘second wife’: Delhi HC==
[http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/No-job-on-compassionate-grounds-for-‘second-wife’/article17111507.ece  Akanksha Jain, No compassionate employment to "second" wife without divorce with the "first", Jan 29, 2017: The Hindu]


Under the Hindu law, marriage is a '''sacrament and not a contract,''' which can be entered into by execution of a marriage deed, the Delhi High Court observed while rejecting the plea of a woman that she be declared the legally wedded wife of a government servant, now deceased, so that she can get a job on compassionate grounds and avail of the other benefits.

The court noted that when the woman got married to the government servant, Hari Ram, he already had a wife and had not applied for divorce. The second marriage, as claimed by the petitioner, was by way of a marriage deed.

The petitioner, Champa Devi, had initiated the litigation mainly to get an appointment on compassionate grounds as well as the financial benefits payable to legal heirs of Hari Ram on his death. Hari Ram was a sweeper at GTB Hospital.

'''Marriage deed'''

Champa told the court that she got married to Hari Ram by way of a deed and affidavit in 1990. “Since inception, the contention of the appellant (Champa Devi) had been that her marriage with Hari Ram on June 2, 1990, was performed by way of execution of a marriage deed and an affidavit. It is not disputed by her that late Hari Ram had a living spouse, Phoolmati Devi, on June 2, 1990, and she expired on May 11, 1994,” said Justice Pratibha Rani.

In the instant case, Champa applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on demise of Hari Ram.

In August 2001, she was offered appointment as safai karamchari on temporary basis at GTB hospital.

'''Divorce not sought'''

A month later, she was issued a show-cause notice by the medical superintendent, GTB Hospital, asking her to explain the legality and validity of her marriage with Hari Ram. The notice said that being a government servant, Hari Ram could not have married during the lifetime of his first wife and there was no proof of him having sought divorce from Phoolmati Devi.

Champa Devi contended that since she was the only wife alive at the time of the death of Hari Ram on February 15, 1997, she was entitled to all the benefits payable to his legally wedded wife.

She said she got married to Hari Ram on June 2, 1990. After the death of his first wife, Hari Ram and Champa got married again in June, 1994, at Delhi and then again before the gram panchayat of Mahabalpur village, Farukhabad district, U.P. The marriage ceremony was performed on December 10, 1994, Champa said.

The suit was contested by the Lieutenant-Governor, the medical superintendent of GTB Hospital and the Delhi government. It was submitted that as per office record in 1994, Hari Ram had only one wife named Phoolmati Devi. Hari Ram never gave any intimation about his second marriage.

‘No satisfactory evidence’

“It’s been rightly held that the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim the status of a legally wedded wife of Hari Ram on the strength of alleged marriage dated June 2, 1990. The solemnisation of marriage thereafter at Delhi and on December 10, 1994, at the village of Hari Ram was also not proved by leading satisfactory evidence to this effect. Even the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat stated the date of marriage as June 2, 1990, with no reference to remarriage,” the High Court held.

HC rejects woman’s plea to declare her legally wedded wife so she can get financial benefits

=Marriage within the same gotra=
==1945 Bombay HC: They are legal==

[http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?skin=pastissues2&enter=LowLevel From the archives of '' The Times of India '' 2007, 2009]

'''Same-gotra marriage legal, court had ruled 65 years ago''' 

Wavering Netas Should Know About This Bombay HC Verdict 

Ronojoy Sen | TNN 

[http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?skin=pastissues2&enter=LowLevel From the archives of '' The Times of India '' 2007, 2009] 

New Delhi: The sustained effort by aggressive khap panchayats and their influential political backers to force parties to have a rethink on samegotra marriages is patently illegal. Sixty-five years ago, in 1945, the issue was settled by the Bombay High Court which categorically declared samegotra marriages were legal. And that’s been the law of the land since. 

In the wake of the khaps’ defiance of the law, not only have top politicians like Om Prakash Chautala and Naveen Jindal caved in — no doubt to retain the political support of these medieval organizations — but national parties like BJP, too, have been wavering. The BJP on Thursday talked about building ‘‘consensus’’ on the issue, indicating there was scope for modifying the legal view on same-gotra marriages. Even theCongress is said to be keeping its cards close to the chest. 

So, even as khaps spit fire at courts for holding such marriages legal, it is instructive to learn about the rigour with which two reputed judges went into the issue in 1945, much before Hindu personal law was codified. They consulted the writings of leading experts and delved into Hindu scriptures to arrive at their verdict. 

The case, ‘Madhavrao vs Raghavendrarao’, involved a Deshastha Brahmin couple and the two-judge bench comprised Harilal Kania, the first chief justice of independent India, and P B Gajendragadkar, who became CJI in the 1960s. The essence of the case was whether ‘sagotra’ marriage or marriage within the same gotra was valid under Hindu custom. 

The court initially relied on a landmark 1868 case where the Privy Council had stated, ‘‘under the Hindu system of law, clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law’’. However, a custom which was at variance with the written text of Hindu law, had to be ancient, certain and reasonable if it was to be recognized by the court.

==Ban on same-gotra marriages  rejected==

''' SC throws out PIL seeking ban on same-gotra unions ''' 
 
TIMES NEWS NETWORK  

[http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?skin=pastissues2&enter=LowLevel From the archives of '' The Times of India '' 2007, 2009]

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIL seeking amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act to ban same ‘gotra’ marriages, a plea that was earlier raised by khap panchayats that got support from political circles in Haryana. 

A vacation bench comprising justices Deepak Verma and K S Radhakrishnan told petitioner Naresh Kadyan’s counsel K T S Tulsi that his client would do better to move the high court concerned which had the power and jurisdiction to decide the issue. 

When Tulsi argued that the issues raised in the petition had a pan-Indian appeal, the bench said the HC could decide such matters. This made Tulsi to request withdrawal of the PIL. The bench allowed that with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue afresh before the HC. Though the SC refused to entertain the PIL on amendment to HMA, another PIL by NGO ‘Shakti Vahini’ was filed in the apex court seeking protection for couples facing threat from khap panchayats for marrying against prevailing social norms. 

Seeking a direction to the Centre and the states of Punjab, Haryana, UP, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, where honour killings have been practised in one form or the other, the petitioner NGO said it was time the governments at the Centre and the states thought of taking preventive measures against this social evil. 

“Such crimes include battery, torture, mutilation, rape, forced marriage, imprisonment within the home and even murder. These crimes are intended to protect the family honour by preventing and punishing women for allegedly violating community norms of behaviour, particularly sexual behaviour. Women have been abducted, arrested or raped and are often blamed for shaming their families. Reasons for honour killings can be as trivial as talking to a man, or as innocent as suffering rape. These crimes are often collective and premeditated,” it said. 

The NGO said states should constitute a special cell in each district where couples could approach for safety that should lead to active prosecution of those responsible for honour killings. 

===Drawing The Line=== 

A vacation bench told petitioner that it would do better to move the HC concerned which had the power and jurisdiction to decide the issue 

Another PIL was filed by NGO in SC seeking protection for couples facing threat from khaps for marrying against prevailing social norms 

NGO said it was time the Centre and the states thought of taking preventive measures against this social evil

=Marriage with minor girl=
==Cannot be anulled==
[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/article-share?article=25_01_2023_011_012_cap_TOI January 25, 2023: ''The Times of India'']

Though the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, prescribes the minimum age of 18 years for women, it does not provide fornullifying marriage with a minor girl, the Karnataka HC said in a recent order.  A division bench headed byJustice Alok Aradhe made the observation while reversing the decision of a family court in Channapatna in Ramanagaradistrict, which declared null and void the marriage of a woman who was 16 years and 11 months old at the time of her wedding.  TNN

=Rituals=
==Hindu marriage invalid without customary rituals: SC==
[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=02_05_2024_001_028_cap_TOI  May 2, 2024: ''The Times of India'']


New Delhi: Observing that a Hindu marriage is a sacred process and not merely a “song and dance” and “wining and dining” event, Supreme Court has held that customary rituals and ceremonies prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act must be strictly followed, failing which a marriage would be declared invalid even after it has been registered, reports Amit Anand Choudhary.


''' Hindu marriage becomes binding only after ‘saptapadi’: SC '''

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih said Section 7 of the Act lists ‘ceremonies of a Hindu marriage’, which have to be complied with for validity of the marriage and if it is not done, then the marriage is not deemed valid in the eye of the law. Section 7 says a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. Where such rites and ceremonies include the ‘saptapadi’ (the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

 “Where a Hindu marriage is not performed in accordance with the applicable rites or ceremonies such as saptapadi when included, the marriage will not be construed as a Hindu marriage. In other words, for a valid marriage under the Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed and there must be proof of performance of the said ceremony when an issue/controversy arises. Unless the parties have undergone such ceremony, there would be no Hindu marriage according to Section 7 of the Act and a mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies having been performed would neither confirm any marital status to the parties nor establish a marriage under Hindu law,” the bench said.

 The court passed the order while adjudicating the matrimonial dispute of a couple who are commercial pilots and they admitted that they did not comply with the ceremonies prescribed in Section 7 before getting their marriage registered. The court declared them not legally married and quashed their marriage certificate.

 “The advantage of registration is that it facilitates proof of factum of marriage in a disputed case. But if there has been no marriage in accordance with Section 7, the registration would not confer legitimacy to the mar- riage. We find that the registration of Hindu marriages under the said provision is only to facilitate the proof of a Hindu marriage but for that, there has to be a Hindu marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Act inasmuch as there must be a marriage ceremony which has taken place between the parties in accordance with the said provision. In the absence of there being a valid Hindu marriage, the marriage registration officer cannot register such a marriage,” the bench said.

=‘Sapinda’ marriages=
==Constitutional validity of law prohibiting ‘Sapinda’ marriage upheld by HC==
[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=25_01_2024_013_010_cap_TOI  January 25, 2024: ''The Times of India'']

New Delhi: Delhi High Court has upheld constitutional validity of a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act which prohibits ‘Sapinda’ marriages between people related to each other through ancestors unless their custom allows them to do so. "If the choice of a partner in a marriage is left unregulated incestuous relationship may gain legitimacy,” a bench of acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet PS Arora pointed out, while hearing a plea filed by a woman challenging Section 5(V) (conditions for a Hindu marriage) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

 'Sapinda' relationship extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned who is to be counted as the first generation. The Hindu marriage law prohibits Sapinda unions.

 The woman assailed a family court's judgment declaring that the marriage between her and her distant cousin was solemnised in contravention of the provision of the Act and was held null and void.

 Since HC in appeal refused to grant any relief, she filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the provision banning Sapinda marriages.

 Stating that no tenable grounds in law for challenging the provision have been placed before the court, HC added that the petitioner has failed to plead any legal grounds for challenging the restriction imposed by the provision.

 TNN

==‘Sapinda’ marriages: A backgrounder==
[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/incestuous-sapinda-marriages-9129281/   Ajoy Sinha Karpuram, Jan 29, 2024: ''The Indian Express'']


'' Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a union between Hindu relatives is allowed only under very specific circumstances. But this is not necessarily the case in other countries. What is the law in Europe and the US? ''

Delhi High Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which prohibits marriage between two Hindus if they are “sapindas” of each other — “unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two”.

''' What is a sapinda marriage? '''

A sapinda marriage is one between individuals who are related to each other within a certain degree of closeness. Sapinda relationships for the purposes of the HMA are defined in Section 3 of the Act.

“Two persons are said to be sapindas of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them,” Section 3(f)(ii) says.

Under the provisions of the HMA, on the mother’s side, a Hindu individual cannot marry anyone who is within three generations of them in the “line of ascent”. On the father’s side, this prohibition applies to anyone within five generations of the individual.

In practice, this means that on their mother’s side, an individual cannot marry their sibling (first generation), their parents (second generation), their grandparents (third generation), or an individual who shares this ancestry within three generations.

On their father’s side, this prohibition would extend up to their grandparents’ grandparent, and anyone who shares this ancestry within five generations.

If a marriage is found to violate Section 5(v) for being a sapinda marriage, and there is no established custom that allows such a practice, it will be declared void.

This would mean that the marriage was invalid from the very beginning, and will be treated as though it never took place.

''' Are there any exceptions to the prohibition against sapinda marriages? ''' 

Yes — the sole exception can be found within the same provision. As noted above, it arises when the customs of each individual permits sapinda marriages.

The definition of the word “custom” is provided in Section 3(a) of the HMA. It states that a custom has to be “continuously and uniformly observed for a long time”, and should have gained enough legitimacy among Hindus in a local area, tribe, group, or family, such that it has obtained “the force of law”.

A custom may not be protected even after these conditions are fulfilled. The rule in question must be “certain and not unreasonable or opposed to public policy” and, “in the case of a rule [that is] applicable only to a family”, it should not have been “discontinued by the family”.

''' On what grounds was the law challenged? ''' 

In 2007, the woman’s marriage was declared void after her husband successfully proved that they had entered into a sapinda marriage, and that the woman was not from a community where such marriages could be considered a custom. This ruling was challenged before the Delhi HC, which dismissed the appeal in October 2023.

The woman then approached the HC again, challenging the constitutional validity of the prohibition on sapinda marriages. She argued that sapinda marriages are prevalent even when there is no proof of custom. Hence, Section 5(v) which prohibits sapinda marriages unless there is an established custom, violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also argued that the marriage had received the consent of both families, which proved the legitimacy of the marriage.

''' What did the High Court say? ''' 

The Delhi High Court found no merit in her arguments.

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that the petitioner did not provide “stringent proof” of an established custom, which is necessary to justify a sapinda marriage.

The Delhi HC also held that the choice of a partner in a marriage can be subject to regulation. With this in mind, the court held that the woman did not present any “cogent legal ground” to show that the prohibition against sapinda marriages was violative of the right to equality.

''' Are marriages similar to sapinda marriages allowed in other countries? ''' 

In several European countries, the laws on relationships that are considered incestuous are less stringent than in India.

In France, the crime of incest was abolished under the Penal Code of 1810, so long as the marriage was between consenting adults.

This Code was enacted under Napoleon Bonaparte, and was also enforced in Belgium. A new Penal Code was introduced in Belgium in 1867 to replace the French code, but incest remains legal.

Portuguese law also does not criminalise incest.

The Republic of Ireland recognised same-sex marriages in 2015, but the law on incest has not been updated to include individuals in same-sex relationships.

Under Italian law, incest is a crime only if it causes a “public scandal”.

In the United States, incestuous marriages are banned in all 50 states, though incestuous relationships between consenting adults are allowed in New Jersey and Rhode Island.

[[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]

=Saptapadi/ Saat pherey=
==Marriages not valid without them==
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/hindu-marriage-not-valid-without-saat-pheras-says-allahabad-hc/articleshow/104168615.cms  Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Oct 5, 2023: ''The Times of India'']


PRAYAGRAJ: Observing that a Hindu marriage is not valid without the 'saptapadi' ceremony (taking seven rounds around the sacred fire) and other rituals, the Allahabad high court has quashed the entire proceedings of a complaint case, where the husband had sought punishment for his estranged wife, alleging that she had solemnized her second marriage without obtaining a divorce from him.

Allowing a petition filed by Smriti Singh, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh on September 19 observed, “It is well settled that the word ‘solemnise’ means, in connection with a marriage, ‘to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form’. Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnised’. If the marriage is not a valid marriage ...it is not a marriage in the eyes of law. The ‘saptapadi’ ceremony under the Hindu law is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage.”

The court relied on Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. Second, such

==Kanyadaan not essential, ‘saptapadi’ is: HC==
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/kanyadaan-not-essential-under-hindu-marriage-act-saptapadi-is-says-hc/articleshow/109113332.cms  April 8, 2024: ''The Times of India'']

''' ‘Kanyadaan’ not essential under Hindu Marriage Act, ‘saptapadi’ is: HC '''

LUCKNOW: 'Kanyadaan' isn't necessary for solemnisation of a marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, Allahabad high court has recently said.

Only 'saptapadi' (Sanskrit for 'saat phere') is an essential ceremony of such a marriage, Lucknow bench of HC said while hearing a revision petition filed by one Ashutosh Yadav.

Yadav, who had challenged an order passed by Lucknow additional sessions judge on March 6 while contesting a criminal case filed by his in-laws, had maintained before the trial court that his marriage under the Act mandated a 'kanyadaan' ceremony, which was not performed in his case.

"The Act provides 'saptapadi' as an essential ceremony... Whether the ceremony of 'kanyadaan' was performed or not, would not be essential for a just decision in this case," Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of HC said and junked Yadav's revision plea.

[[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]

=Second marriage=
==Valid even if plea against divorce is pending: SC==
[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F08%2F26&entity=Ar00119&sk=9A4A502C&mode=text  AmitAnand Choudhary, 2nd marriage valid even if plea against divorce is pending: SC, August 26, 2018: ''The Times of India'']


Though the Hindu Marriage Act prescribes that it is lawful to remarry only after dismissal of any appeal by a spouse against a decree of divorce, the Supreme Court has clarified that a second marriage will not be void if solemnised during the pendency of the appeal.

In a significant interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a bench of Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswara Rao said the period of time when a marriage is not lawfully permissible — during pendency of appeal against divorce — did not mean the dissolved marriage continues, and held that nuptials solemnised in this interregnum will not be held void due to being held under an “incapacity”.

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act says when a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decision or the time for appeal has expired where there is such a recourse to appeal, or an appeal has been presented and dismissed, remarriage will be legally permissible.

''' ‘Breach of Sec 15 doesn’t render a marriage void’ '''

Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act further says a marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus if neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

The apex court set aside a Delhi high court ruling that held any marriage solemnised by a party during pendency of appeal wherein the operation of the decree of divorce was stayed would be in contravention of Section 5 (1) of the act. It passed the order on an appeal filed by a man challenging the HC verdict which declared his second marriage void on a plea by his second wife.

The man had married a second time when his appeal against divorce from his first wife was pending in HC. During pendency of his plea, he had settled the dispute with his first wife and filed an application for accepting the divorce and sought withdrawal of his appeal. But a fortnight before the HC passed the formal order allowing him to withdraw his appeal, he married a second time.

His second marriage also did not turn out to be blissful and matrimonial discord led his second wife to challenge validity of the marriage, saying that it was void as it was solemnised during pendency of the case in HC. A family court dismissed her plea but the HC ruled in her favour and declared the marriage void.

The SC came to the conclusion that violation of Section 15 did not render a marriage void and said “if a provision of law prescribes incapacity to marry and yet the person marries while under that incapacity, the marriage would not be void in the absence of an express provision that declares nullity”.

“The Hindu Marriage Act is a social welfare legislation and a beneficent legislation and it has to be interpreted in a manner which advances the object of the legislation. The act intends to bring about social reforms. It is well-known that this court cannot interpret a socially beneficial legislation on the basis as if the words therein are cast in stone,” the bench said.

“The dissolution of marriage is complete once the decree is made, subject of course to appeal...,” the bench said.

=Self respect marriages=
==A backgrounder==
[https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/self-respect-marriages-supreme-court-8914350/  Khadija Khan, August 29, 2023: ''The Indian Express'']


The Supreme Court on August 28 observed that there is no blanket ban on advocates solemnising “self-respect” marriages under Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

In doing so, a Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar set aside a 2014 ruling of the Madras High Court holding that marriages performed by the advocates are not valid and that “suyamariyathai” or “self-respect” marriages cannot be solemnised in secrecy.

''' What are ‘self-respect’ marriages? '''

On January 17, 1968, the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1967, received the President’s approval and became the law. This amendment modified the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, by inserting Section 7-A into it. However, it extended only to the state of Tamil Nadu.

Section 7-A deals with the special provision on “self-respect and secular marriages”. It legally recognises “any marriage between any two Hindus”, which can be referred to as “suyamariyathai” or “seerthiruththa marriage” or by any other name.

Such marriages are solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons, with parties declaring each other to be husband or wife, in a language understood by them. Further, each party to the marriage garlands the other or puts a ring on the other’s finger or ties a “thali” or mangal sutra. However, such marriages are also required to be registered as per the law.

The rationale behind the Tamil Nadu government amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to include “suyamariyathai” or “self-respect” marriages, was to radically simplify weddings by shunning the need for mandatory Brahmin priests, holy fire and saptapadi (seven steps). This allowed marriages to be declared in the presence of the couple’s friends or family or any other persons. In a nutshell, the amendment was made to do away with the need for priests and rituals, which were otherwise required to complete wedding ceremonies.

In its recent order, the Supreme Court allowed a petition challenging a Madras High Court order dated May 5 where the court had ordered the initiation of disciplinary action against the advocates who solemnised such marriages in their offices and issued marriage certificates to consenting adults.

''' What did the top court say? '''

In the case of “Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police”, a Bench of Justices Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar was hearing an appeal of a man called Ilavarasan against a Madras High Court order passed in May 2023, rejecting his habeas corpus petition to present his wife before the court.

The petitioner had claimed that he had performed “suyamariyathai” with his wife, who was currently under her parents’ “illegal custody”. Refusing to accept the “self-respect” marriage certificate issued by the advocate, the Madras High Court dismissed Ilvarasan’s habeas corpus plea. Thus, he was compelled to move the top court, which successfully admitted his plea.

In doing so, the court overruled the 2014 ruling of the Madras High Court in “Balakrishna Pandian v. The Superintendent of Police”, where it was held that marriages performed by the advocates are invalid and that “suyammariyathai” or “self-respect” marriages cannot be solemnised in secrecy.

The Madras High Court had held in its 2014 ruling: “We are very clear in our mind that even the protagonists of the Suyammariyathai/Seerthiruththa form of marriage did not visualize marriages being solemnised in secrecy. The very idea of performing marriages with celebration is to publicly declare the marital status of the parties. Even Thanthai Periyar used to conduct Suyamariyathai form of marriages publicly so that the world recognised the status of the couples. Hence, celebration of marriage is not antithetical to Suyammariyathai/Seerthiruththa form of marriage.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that a marriage conducted in secrecy with few strangers around, be it Suyammariyathai form, will not amount to solemnisation, as required under Section 7 & 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act”.

Further, the top court also relied on its 2001 ruling in “Nagalingam v. Sivagami”, which said that there is no blanket ban on advocates to solemnise marriages under Section 7(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu State Amendment Act).


''' What has the top court ruled on ‘self-respect’ marriages in the past? '''

In “S. Nagalingam vs Sivagami” (2001), a bench of Justices DP Mohapatra and KG Balakrishnan recognised the petitioner’s marriage with his wife to be a valid one despite the ceremony of “saptapadi” or seven steps around the sacred fire, not taking place.

Clarifying that the parties in the present case did not consider the “saptapadi” ceremony to be as essential as per their personal law, the court said that Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act (Tamil Nadu State Amendment) would apply instead.

=Sindoor=
==Forcible application does not mean marriage: HC==
[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/forcibly-applying-sindoor-does-not-mean-marriage-high-court/articleshow/105428072.cms  Dev Kumar Pandey, Nov 23, 2023: ''The Times of India'']


PATNA: The Patna high court has held that merely putting vermilion on a woman’s forehead under coercion does not constitute a marriage under Hindu law. A Hindu marriage is not valid unless the same act is voluntary and accompanied by the ritual of ‘saptapadi’ (seven steps taken by the bride and groom around the sacred fire), a division bench comprising Justices P B Bajanthri and Arun Kumar Jha ruled.

The bench on November 10 annulled a “forced” marriage, observing that the appellant, Ravi Kant, then a signalman in the Army, was abducted in Lakhisarai district of Bihar more than 10 years ago, and forced to apply vermilion on the respondent bride’s forehead at gunpoint.

“From bare perusal of the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, it is obvious that the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken (around the sacred fire by the bride and groom). Conversely, if ‘saptapadi’ has not been completed, the marriage would not be considered to be complete,” the HC stated.

The appellant was abducted along with his uncle on June 30, 2013, when they had gone to offer prayers at a temple in Lakhisarai. Later that day, Ravi Kant was forced to “marry” the respondent.

Ravi’s uncle tried to lodge a complaint with the district police, who allegedly did not entertain him. Subsequently, Ravi filed a criminal complaint before the chief judicial magistrate’s court in Lakhisarai.
He also moved the family court for annulment of marriage, which dismissed his plea on January 27, 2020.

Hearing his appeal, the HC bench said the family court’s findings were flawed and expressed surprise that the priest who gave evidence on behalf of the respondent had neither any knowledge about ‘saptapadi’, nor was he able to recall the place where the marriage rites were performed.

[[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]

=See also= 
[[Age of marriage: India]]

[[Child marriage: India]]

[[Marriage and divorce: Indian Muslims]]

[[Marriage and Hinduism]]

[[Marriage and the law (Hindu): India]]

[[Marriage and the law (Inter-faith): India]]

[[Marriage and the law (Muslim): India]]

[[Marriage and the law: India]]

[[Marriage statistics: India]]

[[Marriage, Love and Caste: Telugu]]

[[Panjab Castes: 07-Marriage and intermarriage between tribes]]

[[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]
[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA
MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (HINDU): INDIA]]