kanyadaan-not-mandatory-for-hindu-marriages-rules-allahabad-high-court

In a recent ruling, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court declared that "Kanyadaan" is not a prerequisite for solemnising a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The court stressed that only the "saptapadi" ceremony, also known as "saat phere," holds essential significance in such marriages.

The judgment was delivered during the hearing of a revision petition filed by Ashutosh Yadav, who challenged a verdict issued by a Lucknow additional sessions judge on March 6.

Yadav, who was contesting a criminal case filed by his in-laws, argued before the trial court that his marriage under the Act required a "kanyadaan" ceremony, which he claimed was not performed in his case.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the High Court dismissed Yadav's revision plea, stating, "The Act specifies 'saptapadi' as an essential ceremony... Whether the ceremony of 'kanyadaan' was performed or not would not be essential for a just decision in this case."

The order was issued in response to a criminal revision petition filed by Ashutosh Yadav, challenging the trial court's decision in a criminal case.

The petitioner had sought to recall witnesses under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to clarify contradictions in their statements.

However, the High Court observed that discrepancies in witness statements did not warrant recalling witnesses under section 311 of the CrPC. The court noted that while the trial court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding the marriage certificate mentioning adherence to Hindu rituals, the necessity of the "Kanyadan" ceremony needed further examination.

Highlighting that section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon witnesses only when essential for a just decision, the High Court emphasised that summoning witnesses solely to prove the performance of the "Kanyadan" ceremony was unnecessary.

"The ceremony of Kanyadan being performed or not would not be crucial for a just decision in this case," the court emphasised, rejecting the criminal revision petition in light of this observation.