ESSENTIALS OF HINDU MARRIAGE

• Q1. Raju, a Hindu man was married to Alka, a Hindu lady as per the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. After 7 years of marriage Raju died because of heart attack. Now his family
wants Raju's younger brother to marry Alka. Decide.
• Q2. Raju, a Hindu man was married to Alka, a Hindu lady as per the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. After 7 years of marriage Alka died because of heart attack. Now his family
wants Alka's younger sister to marry Raju. Decide.
• Q3. whether a Hindu marriage solemnized in breach of the conditions prescribed in sub-clause (iii)
of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, namely, the minimum age requirement of 21 and 18 as
regards" the boy and the girl, is void, voidable or whether the marriage is to be treated as a valid 
CONDITIONS FOR A MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
• S.5 of HMA provides for the essentials of a Hindu Marriage:
Conditions for a Hindu marriage. —A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled,
namely:—
(i)neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;
(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party —
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be
unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity  3 [***];]
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of 4 [twenty-one years] and the bride, the age of 5 [eighteen years] at the time of the
marriage;
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a
marriage between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the
two.
FIRST ESSENTIAL: BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE
MARRIAGE MUST BE HINDUS
• RAMESH KUMAR V. KANNAPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT, AIR 1998 Ker 95:

A Japanese lady following Buddhism visited India on a temporary visa and got married in accordance
with the customary rites of Nair community. The Kerala High Court held that as the lady was not a
permanent resident of India, the HMA does not apply to her and cannot be registered under section 8
of the Act.
However, in the subsequent case of VINAY NAIR v. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, AIR 2006 Ker
275; the marriage of a Canadian with an Indian Hindu domiciled in India was held as valid. The
groom was born in Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship. He got married with an Indian Hindu
girl in accordance with the customary rites of Nair community. His application for registration of
marriage was rejected on ground of his Canadian domicile. But the order was reversed by the Kerala
High court and directed Cochin Corporation to issue the certificate.
FIRST ESSENTIAL: BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE
MARRIAGE MUST BE HINDUS
• Varindra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) HLR 544 (Raj) ;
• It was held that where petitioner who was a Hindu residing in Canada but married under
the HMA in India, the Registrar cannot refuse registration of marriage.
FIRST ESSENTIAL: BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE
MARRIAGE MUST BE HINDUS

• Flg Officer Rajiv Gakhar v. Bhavna @ Sahar Wasif, AIR 2011 SC 2053
The lady in present case at the time of marriage had made a declaration stating that she was
spinster and a Hindu. However, later it was found that she was earlier married and had two
children from her previous marriage. She followed the Islamic faith at that time and her name
was Sahar. The husband filed a case before the court for dissolution of their marriage.
The court held that the marriage was valid as after the dissolution of her first marriage the
respondent had changed her faith to Hinduism.
The court observed that the crucial time to determine the religious status of the parties is date
of marriage
FIRST ESSENTIAL: BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE
MARRIAGE MUST BE HINDUS
• Ga Arife @ Arti Sharma v. Gopal Dutt Sharma, (2010) II DMC 424 (Del.) ;
• Where wife’s conversion from Islam to Hinduism before marriage was not proved, it was
held that there could be no marriage under HMA and so she could not claim divorce
under the provisions of this Act.
• Gullipilli Sowria Raj v. Bhandari Pavani, AIR 2009 SC 1085 ;
• A marriage performed between a Hindu and a Christian performed in a temple by
exchange of thali and later got registered under section 8 of the Act, is a void marriage.
SECOND ESSENTIAL: MONOGAMY

• Bigamy is punishable under s. 17 HMA read with s.494 IPC.

• G. Sambireddy v. G. Jayamma, AIR 1972 AP 156 ;
section11 and 17 of HMA were challenged to be violative of Part III of Indian Constitution.
However, the court referring to its previous decisions held that the legislature can introduce
new laws in order to bring in social reforms. Thereby, the sections were declared as valid.
• Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531 ;
4 Hindu men had converted to Islam in order to undertake a second marriage as the same
wasn’t permissible under Hindu laws. It was held that such a conversion wasn’t valid in the
eye of law and the marriages were declared as invalid.
THIRD ESSENTIAL: MENTAL HEALTH

• The present provision was introduced by the way of an amendment in the year 1976.
Unsoundness can lead to the following consequences and are of the following types:
i. Unsoundness where a person is unable to give consent at the time of marriage makes
the marriage as voidable at the option of the other party.
ii. The person is unable to procreate children and unfit for marriage.
iii. Suffering from such recurrent attacks.
THIRD ESSENTIAL: MENTAL HEALTH

• The earliest available case noted on this issue is of Whysall v. Whysall, (1959) 3 All ER
389 (396). In order to decide the nature and degree of unsoundness of mind which can
furnish a good ground to nullify a marriage, the English Courts took help of the
provisions of S. 90 of their Lunacy Act and it has been understood that the degree of
unsoundness of mind for breaking a marriage should be that a person complained of "is
incapable of managing himself and his affairs" and 'affairs' as used in the Lunacy Act was
understood to include 'the problems of society and of married life' and the test of ability
to manage affairs is that to be required of the reasonable.
THIRD ESSENTIAL: MENTAL HEALTH

• Benett v. Benett, (1969) 1 All ER 539 :

A person is unfit for marriage if he/she is unable to carry out the obligations
and duties arising out of a marriage,
• Parvati Mishra v. Jagadananda, (1994) 78 CLJ 561:
It was held the feeble mindedness or dullness of mind doesn’t fall under
section 5(2) of the Act. Thus, doesn’t make a person of unsound mind.
FOURTH ESSENTIAL: AGE

• The groom must be of 21 years and bride of 18 years at the time marriage. The
same was introduced by an amendment in 1976. The Act doesn’t provide if the
factor makes a marriage void or voidable.
• Subodh Saha v. Ajanta Saha (2000) 2 CWN 323:
The wife aged 20 years and the husband aged 37 years filed a case before the court
for the nullity of marriage on the ground of difference in their age. The court held
that there is no maximum age of marriage prescribe by the Act. However, non-
performance of obligations cannot be eliminated.
FOURTH ESSENTIAL: AGE

• Mallikarjuniah v. HC Gowramma AIR 1997 Kant. 77:

The court held that the objective behind introducing the clause was not to
declare the marriage as void because of the different strata's that exist in the
Indian society. however, the punishment for the same is prescribed under
s.18 of the Act.
FIFTH ESSENTIAL: DEGREES OF PROHIBITED
RELATIONSHIP
• S. 3(g) of the Act provides for the degrees of prohibited relationship:
i. If one is the lineal ascendant of the other.
ii. If one was the wife or husband of a lineal ascendant or descendant.
iii. Wife of brother or of father’s and mother’s brother or grandfather’s or
grandmother’s brother.
iv. A brother or sister, uncle or aunt, nephew, children of brother and children of
sister
FIFTH ESSENTIAL: DEGREES OF PROHIBITED
RELATIONSHIP
• Shakuntla Devi v. Amarnath AIR 1982 P&H 221:
The court held that a marriage within the prohibited relationship is void unless the custom
governing both the parties to the marriage provides for it . The burden of proving the custom is
on the party claiming for it.
•Example of such custom are the custom in South India, where the marriage between a girl with
her maternal uncle is considered desirable, as held in Venkata v. Subhadra, 7 Mad 548.
• Baluswami Reddiar v. Balakrishna Reddiar, AIR 1957 Mad 97:
A custom prevailed in the community that a man can marry his own daughter’s daughter. The
court held such a custom to be invalid as being opposed to public order and morality.
SIXTH ESSENTIAL: SAPINDA RELATIONSHIP

• S. 3(f) of the Act defines Sapinda relationship as :

i. 3 generations from mother’s side.
ii. 5 generations from father’s side.
• Section 3(f)(i) of the Act says that a sapinda relationship, with reference to any person, extends as
far as the third generation (inclusive of the third generation) in the line of ascent through the mother,
and the fifth-generation (inclusive of the fifth generation) in the line of ascent through the father.
• In determining the sapinda relationship, the line is always to be traced upwards from the person
concerned, and such a person has to be counted as the first generation.
• This also includes full blood, half-blood and uterine blood relationship; legitimate as well as
illegitimate blood relationship; blood relationship including relationship by adoption.
SIXTH ESSENTIAL: SAPINDA RELATIONSHIP

• According to old Hindu Law, when two persons offer Pinda to same ancestors, then it is said
that they are in a sapinda relationship.
• There are two theories propounded for this kind of relationship. The first one is Jimutavahana
(oblation) Theory. According to this theory, Pinda means the ball of rice offered at a sraddha
ceremony to deceased ancestors. 
• The second theory is Vijnaneswara’s (particles of the same body) Theory. According to this
theory, Pinda means body. Therefore, sapinda relationships are those relationships which are
connected through the body. In other words, two persons would be sapinda relationship when
they have a common ancestor.
SIXTH ESSENTIAL: SAPINDA RELATIONSHIP

• Arun Laxman Rao v. Meena Arun AIR 2006 Bom 342 (DB):
The husband approached the court for the dissolution of marriage on the ground that he and
his wife fell with the sapinda. The wife however, claimed for a custom but couldn’t
establish its continuity. Thus, the court held the marriage as void.
CEREMONIES FOR A HINDU MARRIAGE

• Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage. —

• (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and
ceremonies of either party thereto.
• (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptpadi (that is, 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. 
• Vadde Rama Rao v. State of AP, (1989) 3 ALT 529 (AP); Marriage performed in a novel
form is not a valid marriage.
• Darbara Singh v. Jaswant Kaur, AIR 2014 P&H 100; Karewa marriage was held to be valid
as duly recognized under the customary practices of the parties.
CEREMONIES FOR A HINDU MARRIAGE

• Jagdish v. Shobha, 2006 (2) HLR 608 (Bom.):

• Where the parties were Buddhists and the husband tied marriage necklace and also applied
vermillion on the wife’s forehead in presence of several people, except her father, the same
being permissible under their custom, the marriage was considered to be valid.
• Smt. Neera v. Har Kaur, 1989 (1) HLR 125 (P&H): Anand Karaj
• Jalsi Kaur v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Pat 471 : Sindurdan
• Maharaja of Kolhapur v. Sundaram Aiyar, AIR 1925 Mad 497 : Katar
• Rajdei v. Lautan, AIR 1980 All 109 : Pau Puja
• Ramlal Agarwal v. Shanta Devi, I (2000) DMC 640 : Kanyadan- Ritual of the past.