Delhi High Court Reinforces Legal Presumption of Marriage Validity
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has restated the legal presumption in favor of the validity of marriage, holding that the absence of direct evidence showing performance of Saptapadi—the traditional taking of seven steps before the sacred fire—does not, by itself, render a Hindu marriage invalid. The Court emphasized that when circumstances indicate the parties underwent some form of marriage ritual and subsequently lived together as a married couple, the presumption of legitimacy remains robust, especially if a child has been born from the union.
Background of the Case
Delivering judgment on August 27, 2025, in an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a husband's challenge to a Family Court ruling. The Family Court had rejected his plea seeking a declaration that his marriage was null and void on the ground that Saptapadi had not been performed. The appeal stemmed from proceedings where the appellant sought declaratory relief and a permanent injunction, arguing that essential marriage ceremonies were absent. The Family Court had ruled the claim unfounded based on oral and documentary evidence, leading to the present appeal.
Statutory Analysis Under Hindu Marriage Act
Before examining the factual controversy, the High Court analyzed the statutory scheme under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which governs ceremonies required for solemnization. The Bench noted that the provision grants flexibility regarding rites and ceremonies rather than mandating uniform ritual compliance. Referring to the statute, the Court observed:
"Sub-section (1) of Section 7 confers discretion on the parties to solemnize marriage as per the customs and ceremonies of either party, without mandating any particular ceremony."
It further clarified the role of Saptapadi within this framework:
"Thus, performance of Saptapadi is not an indispensable requirement in every case to establish a valid marriage. Sub-section (2) only clarifies that where Saptapadi is a part of the customary rites performed, the marriage attains completeness and binding force with the seventh step."
This interpretation formed the basis for the Court's consideration of the argument that non-performance of Saptapadi by the appellant made the marriage void. The Court emphasized that Section 7 does not prescribe a uniform ritual requirement but recognizes diversity of customary practices governing solemnization. Therefore, the provision necessitates examination of surrounding circumstances and evidence rather than mechanical insistence on proof of a specific ceremony.
Factual Details and Evidentiary Contentions
According to pleadings before the Court, the parties exchanged garlands in Delhi on June 19, 2016. The appellant claimed that ceremonies in accordance with relevant customs, such as Saptapadi, were never performed. However, it was admitted that thereafter, the parties continued to stay together, the marriage was consummated, and a daughter was born from the union. The appellant argued he lived with the respondent until October 2016 but later decided the marriage was invalid due to missing rituals. The respondent refuted this, stating she was pushed out of her matrimonial home in October 2017 and that ceremonies, including Saptapadi, were actually conducted.
Following trial, the Family Court dismissed the husband's suit, holding he failed to substantiate his allegations. The appellate proceedings centered on whether this conclusion suffered from legal or evidentiary infirmity. The main argument of the appellant was based on inference of evidence, with counsel contending that the respondent failed to produce a marriage album documenting the ceremony, and the court ought to have made an adverse inference against her. It was submitted that absence of proof of Saptapadi indicated the marriage lacked legal validity.
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the respondent argued the appellant bore the burden of proof, especially as he sought to nullify marital status. The respondent insisted rituals were carried out and stressed cohabitation and childbirth. After examining the record, the High Court noted significant weaknesses in the appellant's approach to evidence. He did not examine any priest, guest, or elder present at the ceremony to substantiate his statements, omissions that weakened his plea.
Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy Doctrine
The Court's reasoning then shifted to the doctrine of presumption favoring marriage validity. Referring to established jurisprudence, including precedent from the Bombay High Court, the Bench emphasized the legal principle that long cohabitation and societal recognition reinforce presumptions of lawful marriage. The Court highlighted:
"When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for sufficiently long time and were treated as husband and wife… there is always a presumption in favour of their marriage. If children are born to such a couple, there is a further presumption in favour of their legitimacy."
Applying this doctrine to the facts, the Bench observed the appellant himself admitted cohabitation and a marital relationship. The birth of a child further strengthened the presumption of a valid marriage. The Court stated such presumption is not weakened merely by absence of direct proof of Saptapadi or similar ceremony, especially when some form of marriage ceremony is acknowledged.
On the submission involving failure to produce a marriage album, the Court rejected the argument that an adverse inference ought to be drawn. It held the onus was on the appellant to prove absence of ceremony, not on the respondent to prove it took place. The bench observed:
"The burden of proof being on the Appellant to establish that no Saptapadi was performed, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the Respondent for not producing the marriage album."
It further noted that even production of photographs would not conclusively determine whether Saptapadi occurred, underscoring limitations of such evidence.
Final Determination and Dismissal of Appeal
After examining statutory provisions, evidence, and presumptive doctrines, the Court determined whether it was appropriate to interfere with the Family Court's findings. It held the trial court made a decision resting on plausible evaluation of evidence, with no error requiring correction by the appellate court. The Bench recorded the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to invalidate the marriage, and the presumption of legitimacy remained intact given admitted cohabitation and parenthood.
Accordingly, the Court held:
"We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgement because the conclusion of the Family Court is plausible and possible."
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Family Court's rejection of the husband's suit seeking declaration of nullity. The case, MAT.APP. (F.C.) 317/2023 X vs Y, involved representation by Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma for the appellant and Mr. S.P. Yadav and Mr. Deepak Kumar for the respondent.
