Statutory Grounds For Nullity Or Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act Must Be Strictly Construed To Preserve Sanctity Of Marriage: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging the dismissal of a joint petition under Section 7 of the Act by which the parties had sought a declaration that their marriage was null and void.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while dismissing the appeal, held that “provisions of the HMA, which permit the separation of a married couple through the various means as envisaged by the statute, inter alia, annulment of marriage through a decree of nullity, divorce etc., must necessarily be construed in a strict and limited manner. Such relief can be invoked only on the specific grounds expressly provided by the statute, to allow broader or liberal interpretations would risk trivialising the sanctity of marriage and undermining the legislative intent of preserving its stability, dignity, and permanence except in clearly defined circumstances.”

Advocate Peeyoosh Kalra appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Meghna Nair represented the respondent.

Background

The parties had initially filed a joint petition before the Family Court seeking a declaration under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act that their marriage performed at an Arya Samaj Mandir was void ab initio, alleging that the essential ceremonies, including Saptapadi, had not been performed.

The petitioners contended that the ceremony was admittedly conducted merely for convenience, to facilitate the respondent’s visa process, and that they never cohabited as husband and wife.

The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that a declaration of nullity can only be sought under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that the parties were estopped from denying their marriage after having submitted affidavits confirming its solemnisation.

The Court further held that there was a presumption of valid marriage arising from the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir and the Registrar, and that the parties had failed to rebut it.

Aggrieved by the decision, the appellants approached the High Court, arguing that the Family Court had erred in not recognising the absence of Saptapadi as rendering the marriage void.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court examined the general scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act and reiterated that the statute provides relief only for marriages that have been solemnised. It noted that “all provisions in the HMA that deal with declarations, whether relating to a marriage being void, voidable, or grounds for divorce, are applicable only to those marriages that have been solemnised.”

The Bench clarified that the HMA does not contemplate a declaration that a marriage is invalid merely on the ground of non-solemnisation under Section 7. It was further held that under Section 11, “presupposes a solemnised marriage” and that “the learned Family Court rightly concluded that the Petition before was not a valid one.”

The Court also noted that both parties had affirmed on oath that their marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and had produced documents, including the marriage certificate. Referring to Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Court observed that “any prayer now seeking a declaration that such a marriage, as well as the marriage certificates obtained on the basis of the documents, voluntarily executed, is squarely barred by the doctrine of estoppel embodied in Section 121 of the BSA.”

The Bench further analysed the reliance placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, holding that it was inapplicable as that decision was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution, a power unique to the Supreme Court. “The framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, entrusted this extraordinary power only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court… Consequently, no subordinate court can arrogate to itself such extraordinary constitutional authority,” the Bench observed.

The High Court also found that the appellants had neither examined the Pandit nor the official who issued the Arya Samaj certificate and had not produced any evidence to rebut the presumption of validity. It observed that “mere assertions by the parties are insufficient in matters of this nature”, stating that “a Hindu marriage is considered a sacrament and not merely an informal understanding between two individuals.”

The Bench cautioned that entertaining petitions of this nature could lead to misuse and trivialisation of the matrimonial framework, stating that “if petitions or appeals of this nature were to be entertained, they would create a dangerous precedent by offering a novel and impermissible means of circumventing the statutory framework". "Such an approach would effectively bypass the carefully crafted scheme of the HMA,” it observed.

The High Court also remarked upon the international implications of permitting annulments of convenience, observing that “the same would bring into disrepute the system of Marriage registration and the consequential disbelief in jurisdictions worldwide to India’s manner of grant of registrations and Governmental documentation".

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court’s order and affirming that the petition was not maintainable under the Hindu Marriage Act. It concluded that both the petition and appeal were “the product of sheer ingenuity, a complete misadventure, and a misguided attempt to turn the settled law on its head.”

Accordingly, the appeal, along with all pending applications, was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8888-DB)

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocates Peeyoosh Kalra and Ashok Kumar Nagrath.

Respondent: Advocates Meghna Nair and Yashwant Singh Baghel.

Click here to read/download Judgment