“Kanyadan” not essential for Hindu marriage as per law: Allahabad HC

The court said that Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides only “Saptpadi” (taking of seven steps by bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire) as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage

Dismissing a plea for summoning the witnesses of a criminal case again, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has held that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, the ceremony of “Kanyadan” is not essential for solemnisation of a Hindu marriage.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court passed the order recently. (For Representation)

“Kanyadan” ritual refers to the tradition of a father giving his daughter in marriage to a groom, symbolising the transfer of responsibility and care from one family to another. The court said that Section 7 of the Act provides only “Saptpadi” (taking of seven steps by bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire) as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage.

The order was passed by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi recently on a criminal revision petition filed by one Ashutosh Yadav, challenging the trial court’s order passed in a criminal case by which the trial court had rejected an application moved by the revisionist under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for recalling the witnesses.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that there were some contradictions between the statements given by two witnesses in examination-in-chief and in cross examination, which could only be clarified by re-examination. However, the court noted that discrepancy in the statements of witnesses is no ground for recall of the witnesses under section 311 of CrPC.

The court observed that in the impugned order, the trial court had recorded the contention of the revisionist that the marriage certificate filed by the prosecution mentioned that the marriage was solemnised as per Hindu rituals. However, the fact of the “Kanyadan” ceremony needed to be ascertained and therefore re-examination was needed.

The high court said that section 311 of the CrPC empowers the court to summon any witness in case it is essential for a just decision of the case. However, in the present matter, it appeared that witnesses were being sought to be examined to merely prove whether the ceremony of “Kanyadan” was performed or not, it added.

“Whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not, would not be essential for the just decision of the case,” the court observed. “Therefore, a witness cannot be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proving this fact,” the court said. With this observation, the court rejected the criminal revision petition.