Ahmedabad | The Gujarat High Court has ruled that registration alone cannot validate a Hindu marriage if customary rites and ceremonies, like 'saptapadi', are not performed.
The customary ceremonies, despite their geographical and cultural variations, are believed to purify and transform the spiritual being of an individual, the HC said in its June 23 order.
It passed the verdict while deciding on an appeal filed by a UK-based man challenging the decision of a family court that had refused to declare an alleged marriage between the parties as void.
While quashing the family court's order passed in November last year, the division bench of Justices Ilesh Vora and R T Vachhani said in its order, the copy of which was made available Monday, that the performance of essential ceremonies like saptapadi is the foundation of a Hindu marriage.
Ceremonies like saptapadi, that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire, provide a marriage with the spiritual, social, and legal status as a sacrament and samskara, the court noted.
The issue pertains to appellant Kaushal Sonar, who sought the marriage between parties to be declared null and void. He said he resides in the United Kingdom while the defendant resides in Ahmedabad.
Sonar told the court that he learnt about the alleged marriage only when the defendant approached his parents and handed over a marriage certificate claiming that she is his lawfully wedded wife.
He claimed he never solemnised any marriage with the defendant, never performed any Hindu rites and ceremonies, and never lived with her as husband. He also alleged that his signature on the marriage documents was obtained fraudulently without his free consent.
The HC noted that when the defendant woman unequivocally admitted before the family court that no marriage rites or ceremonies were performed between the parties and the two never shared the relationship of husband and wife, the family court committed an error by dismissing the petition filed by the appellant.
The HC referred to the section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which talks about solemnising of a Hindu marriage in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies, such as saptapadi, to make marriage complete and binding.
The court said that since no marriage rites and ceremonies were performed, the basic and essential requirement of a Hindu marriage is absent in the present case.
"In Hindu tradition, a wife is regarded as one-half of her husband (ardhangini), while at the same time being recognised as an individual with her own identity and as an equal partner in the marriage. Under Hindu Law, marriage is considered a sacrament or samskara. It forms the foundation of a new family," the court noted.
"A Hindu marriage is a samskara and a sacrament, and it must be given its due status as an institution of great importance in Indian society. We, therefore, urge young men and women to carefully consider the institution of marriage before entering into it and to understand the sacred nature of this institution in Indian society," it observed.
It said that marriage is "not merely an occasion for 'song and dance' or 'wining and dining'" or a commercial transaction but "a solemn and foundational event" for a man and a woman to enter into a relationship and build a family in the future.
"A marriage is sacred because it creates a lifelong, dignified, equal, consensual, and healthy union between two individuals. It is also regarded as an event that helps an individual attain salvation, particularly when the prescribed rites and ceremonies are duly performed," the high court further noted.
The customary ceremonies, despite their geographical and cultural variations, are believed to purify and transform the spiritual being of an individual, it added.
Bengaluru | The High Court of Karnataka has held that courts should award interim or final, Jun 30 (PTI) maintenance only when it is shown that a wife lacks the financial means to maintain herself in accordance with her husband's standard of living.
The court made the observation in its June 18 order while setting aside a trial court direction asking a husband to pay his wife interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 a month.
Justice Dr Chillakur Sumalatha, while allowing the husband's plea challenging the order passed by a court in Mysuru on December 19, 2025, said the trial court had failed to consider the wife's income.
"In her affidavit disclosing her assets and liabilities, she herself mentioned that she gets Rs 1,00,000 per month as salary. The Trial Court, which discussed the earnings of the petitioner/husband, ought to have discussed the earnings of respondent No 1/wife and thereafter should have come to a conclusion with regard to the entitlement for interim maintenance. But, totally ignoring the earnings of wife, the impugned order came to be passed," the court said.
According to the High Court, merely because a woman, particularly a wife, files a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, or other laws recognising the right to claim maintenance, courts cannot automatically award maintenance payable by the husband.
"When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband," it said.
"It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final," it added.
Noting that, in the present case, the wife's income was higher than that of the husband, the court said, "With her admitted income of Rs 1,00,000 per month, she can maintain herself. Therefore, there is no requirement for the Trial Court to order the writ petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs 20,000 per month out of his earnings of Rs 60,646 per month."
"Hence, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is unsustainable in the eye of law," it said.
Allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court, Mysuru, the High Court said, "The observations made by this Court regarding the merits of the matter are for deciding the validity of the impugned order only."
"Therefore, they shall have no bearing upon the final disposal of the case or upon any interim applications, if any, already filed or going to be filed by respondent No 1/wife claiming maintenance, even interim, due to change of circumstances," it added.
The wife had filed an application against her husband and his family under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
She sought Rs 1,13,515 per month towards maintenance and Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses from her husband.
After hearing both sides, the trial court directed the husband to pay the wife Rs 20,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Challenging the order, the husband submitted that the marriage had taken place in 2024 and that the couple had lived together for only two months. He also contended that the wife earned more than Rs 1 lakh per month.
According to TDS records, her monthly salary was Rs 1,64,285, while the husband, who worked for a private limited company, earned around Rs 57,000 a month, his counsel submitted.
The couple had no children and, apart from maintaining herself, the wife had no other liabilities or obligations, counsel added.
The wife, on her part, contended that she was the only child of her parents.
"No doubt she is earning around Rs 1 lakh per month, but she is under an obligation to clear all the debts she incurred for her marriage," her counsel argued, seeking dismissal of the writ petition.