Whether valid marriage is performed if seven pheras are taken around bundle of burning aggarbattis?

 On this aspect, we have carefully gone through the
evidence and more particularly the evidence of Bhogendra Jha –
the Priest who performed the marriage ceremony (D.W.2). In his
examination-in-chief, D.W. 2 had deposed that the father of the
Respondent approached him at around 9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and
told him to perform the marriage of his daughter at Hanuman
Temple, Malad on 14th February, 2009. He has further deposed
that the Appellant and the Respondent both were present in the
Temple and five to seven persons were present from the
Appellant's side and about 10 to 12 persons were present from
the Respondent's side. He has further stated that the marriage
was completed within a period of one hour and one hour ten
minutes and he had uttered the mantras and the Appellant and
the Respondent took seven steps around the sacred fire. He has
further stated that the Appellant has not opposed the marriage.
At the time of marriage, about 150 to 200 persons were present
in the Temple as it was a Saturday. He has deposed that the
mother of the Appellant was also present and she had brought
Sindoor to the Hanuman Temple. After the marriage ceremony
was performed, both the Appellant and the Respondent left

together. In cross-examination, DW – 2 has stated that he has
performed seven pheras without any Saptapadi as he is unaware
of what is Saptapadi. However, he has categorically stated that a
bundle of agarbatti was burnt and the Appellant and the
Respondent had taken seven steps/pheras around it. He has
categorically denied that he has falsely deposed that he
performed the marriage. On going through his evidence, we do
not find any substance in the arguments canvassed by Mr
Agrawal. In his examination-in-chief as well as in the crossexamination
what is clear is that the D.W. 2 had uttered the
mantras and the Appellant and the Respondent had taken seven
pheras around the bundle of burning agarbattis (incense sticks).
Mr Agrawal was at pains to point out that walking around
burning agarbattis would not amount to taking seven pheras
around the sacred fire as mentioned in section 7 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore this clearly shows that the
marriage was not completed as required under the provisions of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We are unable to agree with this
submission. What is a sacred fire has not been defined in the Act.
The fact that there was a bundle of agarbattis that was burning
and the Appellant and the Respondent took seven pheras around
the said agarbattis is not disputed. This being the case, at least to

our mind, this would be enough to show that there was
compliance of section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Merely
because the priest (D.W. 2) has stated in his cross-examination
that he has not performed Saptapadi because he was not aware of
what that is, will not carry the case of the Appellant any further.
The Act itself mentions in section 7 as to what is Saptapadi viz.
taking of seven steps by the bride-groom and the bride jointly
before the sacred fire. The fact that seven pheras were taken
around the bundle of burning aggarbattis and looking at the other
evidence (such as photographs amongst other things) which
clearly show that Sindoor was put by the Appellant on the
Respondent and he has garlanded her, we have no hesitation in
holding that all the requirements of a marriage as contemplated
under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were duly complied with.
Merely because they took seven pheras around the burning
aggarbattis does not mean that no seven pheras were taken
around the sacred fire as contemplated under section 7 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This being the case, we find even this
argument of Mr Agrawal cannot be sustained and is therefore
rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.154 OF 2012
IN
PETITION NO.A-739 OF 2009

Mr Samit Subhash Agarwal v/s Ms Kamlesh Lataprasad Gupta 

CORAM : K.K. TATED AND
 B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 27 APRIL, 2018.
Citation:2018(5) MHLJ 416

Print Page

Whether Hindu marriage will be valid even though ritual of "Saptapadi" is not carried out?

Under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 7, namely, the State Amendment inserted in the Statute are applicable and there was a valid marriage between the appellant and Kasturi. Moreover, neither complainant nor the appellant had any case that for a valid marriage among the members of the community to which they belong, this ceremony of "Saptapadi" was an essential one to make it a valid marriage. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act says that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto and where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi, i.e. the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

"Saptapadi" was held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony. The appellant in the instant case, however, had no such case that "Saptapadi" was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per the personal law applicable whereas the provisions contained in Section 7 are applicable to the parties. In any view of the matter, there was a valid marriage on 18.6.1984 between the appellant and the second accused, Kasturi. Therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of bigamy as it was done during the subsistence of his earlier marriage held on 6.9.1970.1

Supreme Court of India

S. Nagalingam vs Sivagami on 31 August, 2001

Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 SC 3576, 2001 (2) ALD Cri 634

Print Page

Whether invalid marriage can be validated by registration of marriage?

 Admittedly, in this particular case, no notice was given under Section 5 of the said Act for the intended marriage and the registration was not made under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. But it was a case of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and that in order to become a valid registered marriage under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, two ceremonies essential had to be performed, namely, (I) Invocation before the sacred fire and (2) Saptapadi, and the absence of these two essential commodities invalidates the marriage. Such invalidity could not be cured simply by registration in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act. If there was a valid marriage, registration of that marriage under Section 8 becomes the proof of a valid marriage under the Act.

Calcutta High Court

Mousumi Chakraborty vs Subrata Guha Roy on 7 February, 1991

Equivalent citations: 95 CWN 380, II (1991) DMC 74

Print Page