A
Hindu marriage is not valid without the 'Saptapadi' ceremony and other rituals,
stated the Allahabad High Court, while quashing the proceedings of a case in
which a man claimed that his estranged wife had entered into a second marriage
without first divorcing him.
The
term 'Saptapadi' or 'saat pheras' is derived from Sanskrit and translates to
'seven steps'. The bride and groom complete seven full circles, walking
clockwise around the sacred fire, or 'agni', to signify the seven principles
and vows they make to each other. Each of these circles is referred to as a
'phere'.
Court's
Order in the Case
Upon
reviewing a petition filed by Smriti Singh, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh noted,
"It is well established that the term 'solemnise' implies, in the context
of marriage, the celebration of the marriage with appropriate ceremonies and
due form. It cannot be considered solemnised unless the marriage is performed
with these proper ceremonies and due form."
If
a marriage is not valid according to the law applicable to the parties
involved, then it is not recognised as a marriage in the eyes of the law.
"The
'Saptapadi' ceremony under Hindu Law is an essential element for constituting a
valid marriage, but such evidence is missing in the present case," the
court elaborated in a recent ruling.
The
court also referenced Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which
indicates that a Hindu marriage may be solemnised following the customary rites
and ceremonies of either party. Additionally, such rites and ceremonies should
include the 'Saptapadi' (taking seven steps by the bride and groom jointly
around the sacred fire), which renders the marriage complete and binding upon
the completion of the seventh step.
While
nullifying the summoning order dated April 21, 2022, and further proceedings of
the complaint case pending before a Mirzapur court against the wife, the court
stated, "There is no specific allegation concerning the 'Saptapadi' in the
complaint or in the statements submitted before the court; therefore, this
court believes that no prima-facie offence has been established against the
applicant, as the claim of a second marriage lacks supporting evidence."