Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by one Maharaj Singh, who sought the quashing of a criminal dowry case registered at Hafizganj police station in Bareilly district.
The Allahabad high court has ruled that marriages between a Hindu man and woman solemnised in Arya Samaj temples are valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided they are solemnised in accordance with prescribed Hindu rites and ceremonies. The court added that the location—whether a temple, home, or open space—has no bearing on the legitimacy of the marriage.
Venue doesn’t matter if Vedic rites are performed, says Allahabad HC (Sourced)
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by one Maharaj Singh, who sought the quashing of a criminal dowry case registered at Hafizganj police station in Bareilly district.
The petitioner contended that his marriage was never solemnised under Hindu rituals and that the Arya Samaj marriage certificate submitted by the woman was forged.
He cited a division bench ruling in Ashish Morya vs Anamika Dhiman, arguing that registration of marriage alone cannot prove its validity. His counsel maintained that the ceremony did not fulfill legal requirements under the 1955 Act.
The court, however, noted that Arya Samaj marriages are generally conducted using Vedic procedures that include Kanyadan, Panigrahan, Saptapadi, and Mantra Ucharan, along with application of vermilion. These customs, the court said, satisfy the essential conditions laid out in Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court also clarified that while a certificate issued by an Arya Samaj temple does not independently carry statutory proof of marriage, it is not without legal standing. Such certificates may be corroborated through testimony of the officiating priest under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 during trial proceedings.
With this, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings in the dowry case. The husband’s application was dismissed on April 8, 2025.