Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2281 (ALL)

RANI DIXIT v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-09-12

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners who have jointly filed this writ petition supported by the affidavit of petitioner No. 2 have claimed the following reliefs : I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent’s No. 2 and 3 to provide the security to peacefully matrimonial life of the petitioners. III. Issue any suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioners in the writ petition allege that both of them are major and have entered into a marriage contract on 15.6.2012 before the Notary Commissioner at Civil Court, Hathras. They are living as husband and wife but as the parents of petitioner No. 1 have not liked their decision of marriage, they with the help of police are interfering in their married life. 4. In the writ petition there are no pleadings to show the manner in which the marriage of the petitioners was performed except that they have entered into a contract of marriage before the Notary Commissioner. 5. The petitioners are both Hindu by religion. The marriage between two Hindus is governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. Section 7 of the Act provides that Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rights and ceremonies and where such rights and ceremonies include Satpadi the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seven steps have been taken. 7. In view of the above, a marriage between two Hindus is to be solemnised according to customary rights and ceremonies which ordinarily in Northern India especially includes invocation of sacred fire, satpadi before it coupled with Kanyadan. 8. Petitioners have not pleaded any different customary rights and ceremonies and have also no where stated that they have performed the marriage according to any customary rights and ceremonies which are prevalent amongst the Hindus. 9. In the absence of such pleadings the marriage of the petitioners cannot be recognised under the aforesaid Act. 10. 8. Petitioners have not pleaded any different customary rights and ceremonies and have also no where stated that they have performed the marriage according to any customary rights and ceremonies which are prevalent amongst the Hindus. 9. In the absence of such pleadings the marriage of the petitioners cannot be recognised under the aforesaid Act. 10. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have entered into civil marriage and have got it registered under the U.P. Registration of Marriage Act, 1973. 11. The marriage of the petitioners is also not registered under the Special Marriage Act. 12. It has not been pleaded to have been performed according to any other law in force governing the marriages between the Hindus namely Arya Samaj Marriage Validation Act etc. No law recognizes marriage of Hindus through any agreement or a contract, as marriage amongst the Hindus is not a contract but a sacrament. 13. In view of the above, the Court refuses to recognise the marriage of the petitioners, if any. The petitioners are therefore not entitle to any relief from this Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction on the basis of the marriage pleaded by them. 14. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.