Section 7 Hindu Marriage Act Recognises Diverse Customary Rites; Not Confined To Any Uniform Codified Ceremonies: Delhi High Court

The Court clarified that the Act protects the plurality of traditions and does not mandate one rigid form of solemnisation.

The High Court was hearing an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, challenging the maintainability of a divorce petition on the plea that the marriage between the parties was performed exclusively under tribal custom and outside the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while rejecting that contention, observed that “The legislative intent underlying Section 7 of the Act is to acknowledge, respect and preserve the plurality of customs and rituals observed among various Hindu communities across India”. The Bench stated that “the provision underscores that a Hindu marriage is not confined to a uniform or codified set of ceremonies, but that it draws its validity from the recognized customs of the community or parties concerned, provided such customs are ancient, certain, continuous, and uniformly observed.”

Advocate Manoj Singh represented the petitioner, while Advocate Akshat Bajpai appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The appellant, in his plea, had resisted the divorce petition by arguing that both parties belonged to a Scheduled Tribe notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and therefore the Hindu Marriage Act was inapplicable under Section 2(2), unless the Central Government specifically notified such application.

The respondent, however, asserted that the marriage was performed with Hindu rites, including tying of the mangalsutra, application of alta, wearing toe rings and performance of saptapadi in the presence of a sacred fire.

It was further stated that photographs and video recordings of the ceremony existed but remained in the appellant’s custody. The Family Court drew an adverse inference for withholding the best evidence and held the petition maintainable.

Challenging this finding, the appellant approached the High Court, contending that the marriage was performed only under tribal customs and that the Hindu Marriage Act was wrongly applied.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and explained that the provision is designed to protect the wide spectrum of matrimonial customs observed across Hindu society. The Court underscored that the validity of a marriage depends on whether marriage rituals recognised by the parties’ custom were duly observed.

While making these observations, the Bench clarified that “Section 7 does not prescribe any particular form of ceremony as a sine qua non for a valid marriage, but rather confers legal recognition on the diversity of Hindu matrimonial customs, provided that the essential requirement of solemnization.”

The Court, however, summarised the “performance of customary rites and ceremonies, intention to enter into a marital union, saptapadi where applicable, and proof of solemnization” as the four essential ingredients of a valid Hindu marriage under the Act.

The Bench further observed that, in the matter at hand, the evidence of customary Hindu rituals was never meaningfully rebutted. The appellant had admitted some photographs, the Court noted, but had failed to produce the complete video or images despite specifically acknowledging their existence.

Referring to precedents including Satprakash Meena v. Alka Meena, the High Court held that if parties belonging to Scheduled Tribes voluntarily perform Hindu marriage rites, dissolution of such a marriage must be dealt with under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court clarified that Section 2(2) excluding Scheduled Tribes from automatic application of the Act is meant to preserve traditional customary laws, but where parties themselves adopt Hindu rites, the statute’s matrimonial framework applies.

Conclusion

Dismissing the appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the marriage was validly solemnised in accordance with customary Hindu rites and therefore the divorce petition was maintainable under the Hindu Marriage Act. All pending applications were also closed.

Cause Title: AR v. BC (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9657-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Manoj Singh, Advocate

Respondent: Akshat Bajpai, Shobhit Trehan and Jayashree Mishra, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment