It is not, however, necessary to prove the performance of ceremony of saptapadi or any other
ceremony, in order to determine the validity of a Hindu marriage. In Chandrabhagbai Ganpati
v. S.N. Kanwar, the issue whether saptapadi was mandatory for a legal marriage arose in
connection with a property dispute. The parties had got married in customary form following
certain ceremonies but not saptapadi. After the death of the husband property disputes
emerged between the widow and her children on one side and the husband’s brother on the
other who challenged the very validity of the marriage between the widow and his deceased
brother on the ground that there was no saptapadi. While the trial court upheld the challenge,
the first appellate court as well as the High Court held that the marriage was legal
notwithstanding the fact that the marriage ceremonies did not include saptapadi.
Nor is kanyadaan a mandatory ceremony for a valid marriage.
A marriage is presumed to have been duly solemnized if it is shown that performance of
some of the ceremonies usually observed on the occasion of marriage have taken place. In
other words, if the marriage is shown to have infact taken place, ceremonies are presumed to
have been duly performed, provided of course that no force nor fraud was practised. Where
all witnesses deposed in unison about the performance of the marriage and the wife herself
gave a vivid description of the ceremonies, certain discrepancies in evidence of witnesses in
regard to saptapadi or kanyadaan were held not to be significant enough to displace the
presumption of a valid marriage.
However, mere fact of joint living for a long time without any ceremonies would not
constitute a valid marriage. An intimate relationship without any ceremonies, entered into
between a man and a woman by a registered agreement before a statutory authority like sub-
registrar, was held not to constitute a valid marriage. For a valid marriage under the Act, both
the parties need to be Hindus at the time of marriage. Thus, where a non-Hindu by birth (a
Christian lady by birth in this case) converts to Hinduism before marriage, and all facts and
circumstances indicate that the converted spouse practised Hinduism, the plea of absence of
proof of conversion or shudhi karan ceremony cannot be raised to seek declaration of nullity
of marriage on the ground that the other spouse was a non-Hindu.
Likewise, in T. Perumal v. R. Nesammal, a husband’s suit for declaration that his marriage
was illegal since the wife was a Christian and not a Hindu at the time of marriage was
dismissed in the absence of any documentary or oral evidence in support of husband’s case.
A marriage between a Hindu woman and a Christian male converted to Hinduism is also a
valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as both were Hindus at the time of
marriage.
Surendra Bhatia v. Poonam Bhatia, was a property dispute. One ‘S’ left behind substantial
properties. His widow ‘P’ and daughter Smita, obtained a succession certificate. This was
challenged by the brother and sister of ‘S’ on the ground, inter alia, that the marriage between
‘S’ and ‘P’ (the widow) was void, as the mother of ‘P’ was a Muslim married to a Hindu. It
was contended that the marriage being void, the daughter Smita was an illegitimate child,
hence neither ‘P’ nor the daughter had any right on the ancestral properties of the deceased
‘S’, under the Hindu law. The court, however, did not accept this argument. It held that as per
cl. (b) of explanation to s. section 2 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955, even if one of the
parents of a child is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh, he/she would be a Hindu for the purpose
of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and marriage solemnized of such child, with a Hindu would be
considered to be that of a Hindu. Thus, irrespective of the fact that ‘P’s’ mother was a
Muslim lady, P’s marriage with the deceased was held to be valid and the daughter
legitimate.
In Vijay Kumari v. V.K. Devabalan, however, the issue involved was whether a son born to a
Hindu converted to Christianity and a Christian lady could become a coparcener in the joint
Hindu family. It was held that the marriage of the parents was not valid under the provisions
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as both the parties were not Hindus at the time of marriage,
and so the son born to them, would not be governed by the concept of coparcenership under
the Hindu law.
Likewise in Gullipilli Sowria Raj v. Bhandaru Pavani, a marriage between a Hindu and a
Christian was held to be void by the Apex Court. A man professing Christian faith and a
Hindu girl married in a temple by exchange of thali and then got the marriage registered
under section 8 of the Act. A few months later, the wife filed a petition for nullity alleging
that the consent was obtained by fraud qua his religion. The husband admitted that he was a
Roman Catholic but that such marriage could be solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. The family court accepted the husband’s argument and held such marriage to be valid
but on wife’s challenge to the High Court, the order was reversed. On husband’s SLP before
the Supreme Court it was argued that the phrase “… may be solemnized between any two
Hindus” is merely directory and not mandatory and indicates permissibility of a marriage
between a Hindu and a non Hindu. This argument however was dismissed and the court held
that the term ‘may’ refers to marriage and not to party’s religion and therefore, the marriage
is a nullity; even registration under section 8 of the Act would not cure the defect of this
otherwise impermissible marriage, the court ruled.
So also in Margaret Palai v. Savitri Palai, where a marriage between a Hindu male and a
Christian female was alleged to have been performed vide a “deed of marriage agreement”,
the court held that it was not a valid marriage as per Hindu law as there was no evidence to
prove that the wife had converted to Hindu faith before the alleged marriage.
