Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Merely registering an agreement of marriage with the Sub-Registrar is not a proof of marriage; the Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta has held this in the case of Rathnamma vs. Sujathamma[i]. In this case, the plaintiff in the course of a suit for partition contested that she was the wife of the defendant’s deceased son, Hanumanthappa.
The Trial Court setting aside her claim held that because of the lack of evidence that the marriage ceremony was performed according to Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mere registration of an agreement of marriage does not prove the marriage.
Upon appeal of the plaintiff to the First Appellate Court it was held that agreement was not a proof of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the agreement being a mere contract in the eyes of law, however, the validity of the marriage was upheld.
The High Court held that in the law, a customary Hindu Marriage can be proved only on establishing that necessary ceremonies have been observed by the parties to the marriage and in this case, the existence of marriage was completely denied by the defendant in the suit for property and thus the Court held that it cannot let them contend the validity of the marriage.
In the appeal against the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove the existence of marriage and thus upheld the decision of The Trial Court and held that the plaintiff cannot succeed the property of her deceased husband Hanumanthappa on the basis of the marriage which the Court has held as invalid in accordance with the provisions of the law.
On the question of the agreement of marriage vis-à-vis the solemnization of marriage as per the provisions laid down in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court observed that the marriage, in this case, has taken place by a mere agreement between the fathers of the husband and wife who belonged to the same caste and thus the Court held that such type of marriages are not valid because for a marriage to be valid, it needs to be in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and it should include customs and ceremonies of either of the two parties and should include Saptpadi which marks the completion of a marriage ceremony.
Further, it was also mentioned that the plaintiff has no right to claim any share in the ancestral property of her deceased husband just because some witnesses testified to her marriage with Hanumanthappa. And that the agreement that was entered into by them which was registered, does not form a valid marriage and neither did she plead that there was a custom that permitted the marriage between prohibited degrees nor was there a proof of the marriage being solemnized with the performance of certain rites or customs.
[i] AIR 2019 SC
86540
103860
630
114
59824