Case Note & Summary
The appellant-husband filed a Family Court Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging the judgment and order dated 1.4.2015 passed by the Family Court No.2, Nagpur, which allowed the respondent-wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent had previously been married to one Rajesh Balkrishna Deshpande in 1998, with whom she had two children, and obtained a divorce on 23.8.2007. She continued to stay with her ex-husband in the same flat. In 2011, she started working as a part-time teacher at Manjusha Convent, where the appellant ran a tent house on the ground floor. The appellant, from the Marwari community, and the respondent, a Maharashtrian Brahmin, developed a love affair and exchanged text messages. On 16.4.2012, the appellant allegedly married the respondent by putting a Mangalsutra and applying vermillion on her hair parting before an idol of Lord Krishna on the 3rd floor of Jagat Apartment. Physical relations were established thereafter. The appellant's parents opposed the marriage and arranged a marriage for the appellant with a girl from their community, with an engagement on 4.8.2013. The respondent lodged a police complaint on 11.9.2013 alleging rape and cheating. The Family Court allowed the restitution petition. The appellant appealed, contending that no valid marriage was performed as essential ceremonies like Saptapadi were not conducted. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the respondent failed to prove the performance of Saptapadi or any other essential ceremony under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held that mere putting of Mangalsutra and applying vermillion does not constitute a valid Hindu marriage. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Family Court's decree was set aside, and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Validity of Marriage - Essential Ceremonies - Saptapadi - The court examined whether the alleged marriage between the appellant and respondent was performed with valid ceremonies, particularly Saptapadi (taking of seven steps) around the sacred fire, which is essential for a Hindu marriage. The respondent claimed marriage by putting Mangalsutra and applying vermillion, but failed to prove performance of Saptapadi or any other essential ceremony. Held that without proof of essential ceremonies, no valid marriage exists (Paras 1-10). B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Burden of Proof - The respondent sought restitution of conjugal rights, but the court found that the marriage was not proved. The burden was on the respondent to establish a valid marriage, which she failed to discharge. The Family Court's decree was set aside as the marriage was not legally valid (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the marriage between the appellant and respondent was validly performed as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, and whether the respondent is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order dated 1.4.2015 passed by Family Court No.2, Nagpur in Petition No.A.1087/2013 is set aside. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent is dismissed.
Law Points
- Validity of marriage
- Essential ceremonies of Hindu marriage
- Saptapadi
- Restitution of conjugal rights
- Burden of proof
