Manju Mehla vs Sonu Kumar
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18.05.2026
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025
X .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Zeeshan Diwan, Mr.
Krishna Datta Multani, Ms.
Harsha & Ms. Ankita Yadav,
Advs.
versus
Y .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar & Mr. Anil
Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
J U D G M E N T
CM APPL.22644/2025 (for condonation of delay of 74 days in
filing the appeal)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing the
captioned appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no
objection if the delay is condoned.
3. In view of the submissions made and the reasons stated in the
application, the delay of 74 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 1 of 12
4. The application stands disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025
5. The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
1984, assails the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2024, passed by
the learned Family Court in HMA No. 1771 of 2019, whereby the
petition of the Appellant seeking annulment of marriage under Section
12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed.
6. Briefly stated, the case of the Appellant before the learned
Family Court was that the Respondent emotionally manipulated and
coerced her into the alleged marriage by extending threats of suicide
and by making false representations regarding his age, background
and financial status. According to the Appellant, on 16.01.2019, the
Respondent took her to Tis Hazari Courts and thereafter to an alleged
Arya Samaj Mandir, where only exchange of garlands took place and
no essential Hindu marriage ceremonies, including Saptapadi were
performed in accordance with law.
7. It was further the Appellant’s case that the parties never lived
together as husband and wife after the alleged marriage and the
marriage was never consummated. The Appellant also alleged that
thereafter the Respondent continued to harass and threaten her and her
family members, including by circulating photographs on social media
and demanding money for agreeing to annulment of marriage,
compelling the Appellant to lodge police complaints in September
2019.
8. In these circumstances, the Appellant instituted a Petition under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking annulment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 2 of 12
of marriage on the grounds of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation.
The Appellant additionally pleaded that the alleged marriage had not
been solemnized in accordance with the essential ceremonies required
under Hindu law and that the Respondent was below the statutory
marriageable age at the relevant time.
9. During the course of proceedings, the Appellant led her
evidence and was duly cross-examined. Though the Respondent filed
his Written Statement and tendered examination-in-chief, he
repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination despite opportunities
being granted. Consequently, vide order dated 20.02.2024, the learned
Family Court closed the Respondent’s evidence.
10. The learned Family Court passed the Impugned Judgment dated
21.12.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the
present Appeal.
11. During the pendency of the present Appeal, the parties were
referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre
vide order dated 03.02.2026 to explore the possibility of an amicable
settlement of their disputes. Thereafter, with the intervention of the
learned Mediator and after several rounds of discussions, the parties
arrived at a Settlement Agreement dated 16.04.2026, which has been
placed on record.
12. In the said settlement, both parties acknowledged that they had
never voluntarily performed the essential ceremonies required for a
valid Hindu marriage, including Saptapadi and other customary rites,
and that the alleged marriage had not been solemnized in accordance
with the mandatory requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 3 of 12
The parties further agreed that they had been living separately for
several years without cohabitation or performance of any marital
obligations and, in order to put a quietus to all disputes and move
forward in their respective lives, mutually resolved to seek annulment
of the alleged marriage before this Court.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material placed on record.
14. By way of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated
21.12.2024 passed in HMA No. 1771/2019, the learned Family Court
dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 12(1)(c) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking annulment of marriage, holding
that the Appellant had failed to establish that her consent for the
marriage was obtained by force, coercion or fraud. The learned Family
Court further held that the allegations regarding threats, blackmail,
false representations concerning the Respondent’s age, occupation and
financial status, as well as the plea regarding non-performance of
essential marriage ceremonies, had not been proved. The learned
Family Court further found that the marriage solemnized through Arya
Samaj rites constituted a valid Hindu marriage and consequently
declined the relief of nullity sought by the Appellant.
15. The Impugned Judgment and Decree has been assailed by the
Appellant, inter alia , on the ground that the learned Family Court
failed to appreciate that the alleged marriage between the parties was
procured by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation and was not
solemnized in accordance with the essential ceremonies required
under Hindu law. It has been contended that despite the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 4 of 12
having failed to subject himself to cross-examination and despite the
learned Family Court itself recording that his evidence could not be
read in evidence, the learned Family Court erroneously proceeded to
rely upon the defence taken in the Written Statement while dismissing
the Petition under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Appellant further submits that the learned Family Court failed to
draw an adverse inference against the Respondent for not entering the
witness box for cross-examination and also failed to appreciate that
the parties never cohabited as husband and wife and that no valid
solemnization of marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 had taken place.
16. Furthermore, learned counsel appearing for both the parties
submitted that during the pendency of the present Appeal, the parties
have amicably resolved all their disputes before the Delhi High Court
Mediation and Conciliation Centre and have entered into a Settlement
Agreement dated 16.04.2026. It has been jointly submitted that in
view of the subsequent settlement arrived at between the parties,
wherein both parties have acknowledged that the essential ceremonies
of a valid Hindu marriage were never voluntarily performed, the
alleged marriage between the parties be annulled and appropriate
orders be passed by this Court in terms of the settlement.
17. The principal question that arises for consideration in the
present Appeal is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the alleged marriage between the parties can be regarded as a validly
solemnized Hindu marriage in the eyes of law and whether the
Appellant had succeeded in establishing grounds warranting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 5 of 12
annulment under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
18. Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties, it is apposite to refer to the relevant statutory provisions
governing the present controversy.
19. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes the
conditions for a Hindu marriage and reads as under:
“5. 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) …
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and
the bride the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage;
…”
20. Furthermore, section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which
deals with ceremonies for a Hindu marriage, reads as under:
“7. 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 Saptapadi, 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.”
21. Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 further
provides:
“12. Voidable marriages.—
(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled
by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:—
………….
(c) that the consent of the petitioner … was obtained by force or by
fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or
circumstance concerning the respondent.”
22. A conjoint reading of Sections 5, 7 and 12 of the Hindu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 6 of 12
Marriage Act, 1955 makes it abundantly clear that a Hindu marriage
does not come into existence merely because photographs are taken,
garlands are exchanged, or a certificate is issued by an institution
claiming to have solemnized the marriage. A valid Hindu marriage
must not only satisfy the statutory conditions prescribed under Section
5 but must also be solemnized in accordance with the essential
ceremonies and customary rites contained in Section 7 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Equally, consent for marriage must be free,
voluntary and uninfluenced by force, coercion, fraud or
misrepresentation. Where the very consent of a party is vitiated or the
foundational ceremonies of marriage are absent, the marriage becomes
liable to be annulled under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act.
23. The law on the issue is no longer res integra . The Supreme
Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra , AIR
1965 SC 1564, while dealing with the requirements of a valid Hindu
marriage, held that unless the essential ceremonies required by law are
duly performed, no valid marriage in the eyes of law comes into
existence. The relevant observations read as under:
“ 3. …
If the marriage is not a valid one, according to the law applicable
to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking
place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying
arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in
the eye of law. The bare fact of a man and a woman living as
husband and wife does not, at any rate, normally give them the
status of husband and wife even though they may hold themselves
out before society as husband and wife and the society treats them
as husband and wife.”
24. The Supreme Court further emphasized that performance of
essential ceremonies is not an empty ritual or a mere technicality but
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 7 of 12
the very foundation upon which the validity of a Hindu marriage rests.
Similarly, in Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh , (1971) 1
SCC 864, the Supreme Court reiterated that due performance of
essential ceremonies, including Saptapadi wherever applicable, must
be affirmatively proved and in absence thereof, the marriage cannot be
treated as validly solemnized under Hindu law.
25. The settled position of law, therefore, is that even a marriage
alleged to have been solemnized through Arya Samaj rites must
satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 7 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mere issuance of a certificate by an Arya
Samaj institution would not by itself dispense with proof of
solemnization in accordance with law.
26. Equally relevant in the facts of the present case are the settled
principles governing appreciation of evidence where a party avoids
cross-examination. The Delhi High Court in Geeta Pandey v. Shekar
Pandey , 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5033, held that where a witness fails
to appear for cross-examination, his examination-in-chief cannot be
read in evidence. The Court observed that testimony which remains
untested by cross-examination cannot be relied upon while
adjudicating disputed questions of fact.
27. The aforesaid principle assumes considerable significance in the
facts of the present case. Though the Respondent had filed his Written
Statement and tendered examination-in-chief before the learned
Family Court, he repeatedly failed to appear for cross-examination
despite several opportunities having been granted. Consequently, vide
order dated 20.02.2024, the learned Family Court closed the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 8 of 12
Respondent’s evidence. Significantly, the said order was never
challenged by the Respondent and therefore attained finality.
28. Even the learned Family Court, in the impugned Judgment,
observed that the evidence of the Respondent could not be read owing
to his failure to subject himself to cross-examination. However,
despite recording the aforesaid finding, the learned Family Court
proceeded to substantially rely upon the defence taken in the Written
Statement while dismissing the Appellant’s petition. In the considered
opinion of this Court, such an approach is legally unsustainable and
contrary to the settled principles governing appreciation of evidence.
29. The record further reveals that the parties admittedly never
cohabited together as husband and wife after the alleged ceremony
dated 16.01.2019. It has consistently been the case of the Appellant
that immediately after the alleged ceremony she returned to her
parental home and no marital relationship was ever consummated. The
contemporaneous complaints lodged by the Appellant in September
2019 also lend support to her allegations regarding threats, coercion
and harassment at the hands of the Respondent.
30. What further assumes significance is that the Respondent failed
to produce any independent witness to establish due solemnization of
marriage in accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. Neither the priest allegedly conducting the ceremony nor any
representative from the Arya Samaj institution was examined before
the learned Family Court. In the absence of such evidence, and
particularly in light of the admitted absence of cohabitation and
subsequent conduct of the parties, the learned Family Court ought to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 9 of 12
have approached the matter with greater circumspection.
31. During the pendency of the present Appeal, the parties were
referred to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and
Conciliation Centre. With the intervention of the learned Mediator, the
parties arrived at a Settlement Agreement dated 16.04.2026. In the
said settlement, both parties have unequivocally acknowledged that
the essential ceremonies required for solemnization of a valid Hindu
marriage, including Saptapadi and customary rites, were never
voluntarily performed in accordance with law. The parties have also
acknowledged that they never lived together as husband and wife after
the alleged marriage ceremony.
32. It is true that matrimonial status cannot be altered merely on the
basis of consent of parties and that the Court must independently
satisfy itself regarding fulfillment of statutory requirements under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, where the material on record
independently demonstrates absence of valid solemnization in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act, coupled with circumstances
showing absence of cohabitation, complete breakdown of the
relationship from inception itself and allegations of coercion
remaining substantially unrebutted, the Court would be justified in
exercising jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act.
33. Having considered the entirety of the material placed on record,
this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court
failed to correctly appreciate both the factual and legal position
obtaining in the matter. The learned Family Court erred in relying
upon the untested defence of the Respondent despite his failure to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 10 of 12
subject himself to cross-examination and further failed to appreciate
the legal consequences flowing from non-proof of essential
ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage under Section 7 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
34. This Court is further satisfied that the material placed on record,
read in conjunction with the subsequent settlement arrived at between
the parties, clearly establishes that the alleged marriage dated
16.01.2019 was never validly solemnized in accordance with the
mandatory requirements of Hindu law and that continuance of such
marital status would result in grave injustice to both parties.
35. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed. The Impugned
Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Family
Court in HMA No.1771/2019 is hereby set aside.
36. Consequently, the marriage between the parties purportedly
solemnized on 16.01.2019 at Arya Samaj Sanatan Vaidik Sanskar
Trust (Regd.), Rajinder Market, Tis Hazari, Delhi – 110054 is
declared null and void and stands annulled.
37. In pursuance of the Settlement Agreement dated 16.04.2026, a
Demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- is handed over to the Respondent by
the Appellant, both of whom are present in person before this Court,
and the same is duly accepted by the Respondent in full and final
settlement of all claims between the parties.
38. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of
the Settlement Agreement dated 16.04.2026 and shall adhere to the
undertakings recorded therein. The Settlement Agreement dated
16.04.2026 shall form part of the present Judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 11 of 12
39. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the
parties, all claims, allegations and disputes arising out of the present
matrimonial relationship and the proceedings emanating therefrom
shall stand fully and finally resolved.
40. In order to protect the privacy and dignity of the parties,
particularly considering the nature of the matrimonial dispute, it is
directed that the names and identities of the parties shall not be
reflected in the judicial record and they shall instead be shown as “X
Vs. Y”.
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 18, 2026
ab/kp/tr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:01.06.2026
15:20:36
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 144/2025 Page 12 of 12