Kanyadan Not An Essential Ceremony For Solemnization Of Hindu Marriage, But Saptpadi Is: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that ‘kanyadan’ is not an essential ceremony for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage, but ‘saptpadi’ is.
The Court clarified that while Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage, it does not specify that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential as well for the solemnization of a Hindu marriage.
A Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage. Whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not, would not be essential for the just decision of the case and, therefore, witnesses cannot be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proving this fact.”
Advocate Girdhari Lal Yadav represented the revisionist, while GA Abhishek Kumar Singh appeared for the opposite party.
The Court provided such clarification in light of the pending appeal since the revisionist had challenged the rejection of this application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to recall witnesses before the High Court.
The revisionist argued that the prosecution had submitted a marriage certificate indicating that a marriage occurred in line with Hindu rituals, including Kanyadan. Reexamining the witness was necessary to confirm this assertion.
In the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had stated that there were contradictions between the statements given by the witness in her examination-in-chief and in her cross-examination, which could only be clarified by reexamination of the said witness and her father.
“Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon any witness in case it is essential for a just decision of the case…it appears that the aforesaid witnesses are being sought to be examined to prove whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not,” the Court noted.
The Court further explained that “There can be no denial of the fact that this Court has ample power to summon any witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the power cannot be exercised in a casual manner on the mere asking of a litigant. This power has to be exercised merely only when it is essential to summon a witness for a just decision of a case.”
Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned proceedings of the police and directed the police to grant protection by imposing reasonable conditions.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Ashutosh Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:25688)
Appearance:
Revisionist: Advocates Girdhari Lal Yadav, Priyanka Pal, Satendra Kumar and Shivesh Yadav
Opposite Party: GA Abhishek Kumar Singh
