Absence of Saptapadi does not exclude marriage from Hindu Marriage Act: Delhi HC

The bench delivered the verdict while dealing with a petition filed by a man against the family court’s February 2024 order.

The absence of Saptapadi — the seven-step ritual around the sacred fire during a wedding — does not invalidate a marriage performed in accordance with Hindu rites and customs nor exclude it from the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), the Delhi high court said on Tuesday.

Representational image.

A bench of justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the verdict while dealing with a petition filed by a man against the family court’s February 2024 order.

In this case, the couple married in February 1998 and had a child from the wedlock. The woman later filed a petition under the HMA, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion.

The husband contested the petition’s maintainability, arguing that their marriage, solemnised according to the customs of the Lambada (Banjara) tribal community without performing Saptapadi (the seven steps), was not a valid Hindu marriage. He further asserted that HMA will not apply as they belonged to members of the Scheduled Tribe (ST).

However, the family court rejected his objection, holding that the marriage had been conducted in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and was valid under the HMA.

In his petition before the high court, the man argued that although the couple observed certain symbolic elements similar to Hindu marriage rituals, such as setting up an altar, wearing red attire, and exchanging a turmeric-smeared necklace, the Saptapadi ceremony was not performed, as it is not practised within the Lambada community.

He contended that Saptapadi is an essential rite under Hindu law, and since the tribal Lambada community has not been fully assimilated into Hindu customs, it continues to follow its own traditional rites and practices governing marriage and other social matters. He further submitted that the validity and dissolution of marriage in question are required to be examined with reference to the customary practices prevalent within the Lambadi community and not under the provisions of HMA.

The woman, on the other hand, had asserted that they had performed Saptapadi around the sacred fire. She further submitted that she, in her descriptive roll form submitted to Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LABSNAA) had categorically stated her religion as Hindu, and the Lambada tribal community has undergone a process of Hinduisation, particularly with respect to marriage ceremonies.

Upholding the family court’s order, the court said that the man had failed to provide substantive evidence to demonstrate that their marriage was performed exclusively as per the customary practices of the Lambada community, and the presumption of a valid marriage under HMA cannot be displaced merely because of the absence of direct evidence regarding Saptapadi.

The judges further ruled that performance of all the essential Hindu ceremonies, which include the invocation of the sacred fire, the wearing of Mangalsutra and Bichiya, and the Saptapadi, clearly reflects that the marriage bore all the hallmarks of a Hindu sacrament.

“It is a settled law that the Act thus grants statutory recognition to Saptapadi but does not make it mandatory for the validity of every Hindu marriage. The presumption of a valid marriage is not displaced merely because of the absence of direct evidence regarding Saptapadi,” the court maintained.

The court in its 20-page ruling also observed that Section 7 of the HMA, which outlines the ceremonies for a Hindu marriage and mentions Saptapadi as one of them, does not mandate any specific ritual as a prerequisite for a valid marriage. Instead, it grants legal recognition to the wide diversity of matrimonial customs practised among Hindu communities, as long as the marriage is duly solemnised. The court further noted that the legislative intent behind this provision was to acknowledge and respect the plurality of traditions and rituals observed across different Hindu groups in India.

“The legislative intent underlying Section 7 of the Act is to acknowledge, respect and preserve the plurality of customs and rituals observed among various Hindu communities across India. The provision underscores that a Hindu marriage is not confined to a uniform or codified set of ceremonies, but that it draws its validity from the recognised customs of the community or parties concerned, provided such customs are ancient, certain, continuous, and uniformly observed. The section thereby ensures that the sanctity of marriage as a sacramental union is maintained while simultaneously safeguarding the autonomy of communities in preserving their traditional matrimonial practices. Thus, Section 7 does not prescribe any particular form of ceremony as a sine qua non for a valid marriage, but rather confers legal recognition on the diversity of Hindu matrimonial customs, provided that the essential requirement of solemnization,” the court maintained.