Registration Alone Can't Validate Hindu Marriage: HC

The Gujarat High Court has said that registering a Hindu marriage is not enough for it to be legally valid without the performance of customary rites and ceremonies, including saptapadi.

The Case

The ruling was issued on an appeal by Kaushal Pramodbhai Sonar, who is based in the UK, and wanted the union with Ahmedabad resident Khushi Sanjay Shah declared invalid. Sonar said he found out about the alleged marriage after the defendant approached his parents and presented a marriage certificate that she was his lawfully wedded wife.

He stated that he never performed any Hindu rites and ceremonies or ever lived with her, as husband and wife, and that his signature on the marriage papers was fraudulently obtained.

More importantly the written statement filed by the respondent clearly admitted that there were no rites and rituals performed and that there was no relation between the parties as husband and wife. But a family court had previously rejected Sonar's request in November 2025, saying that the registered certificate created a presumption of a valid marriage which needed all the proceedings to be conducted.

What the High Court Held

The division bench of Justices Ilesh Vora and R.T. Vachhani differed, setting aside the order as wrong. The court held that registration of a marriage under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is merely a record of a marriage which has already been validly solemnised in accordance with Section 7 of the Act and registration does not of itself make the marriage a valid marriage unless the necessary customary rites and ceremonies are performed.

The bench noted that ceremonies like saptapadi, wherein the bride and groom take seven steps around the sacred fire together, endow a marriage with its spiritual, social and legal character, of being a sacrament or samskara.

The court's June 23 order also included a broader comment on the institution of marriage, which is “a solemn act, the basis of all other (social) relationships” and “not only an occasion for song and dance, or wining and dining”.

It said that a wife is viewed as "ardhangini" (one-half) of her husband, but doesn't lose her identity or her status as a spouse equal to her husband.

The marriage was cancelled as null and void ab initio, and the appellant was granted liberty to approach competent authority for canceling the marriage.