Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 15.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 09.10.2025
+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025
VIVEK NAGRATH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra and
Mr. Ashok Kumar Nagrath,
Advocates.
versus
DIVYA GOGLANI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meghna Nair and
Mr. Yashwant Singh Baghel,
Advocates.
Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee,
Amicus Curiae along with
Ms. Anshika Sharma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1 2
1955 , impugning the Judgment dated 04.10.2024 passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket (District-South),
1
HMA
2
Impugned Judgement
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 1 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
3
New Delhi , in HMA No. 1299/2024, wherein both parties were
arrayed as Petitioners.
2. By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Family Court
dismissed the joint petition filed by the parties herein, Husband and
Wife, under Section 7 of the HMA, which sought a decree declaring
their alleged marriage dated 30.01.2024 as null and void, along with a
declaration that the certificate dated 02.02.2024 issued by the Office
4
of District Magistrate, Shahdara District, Delhi , and the certificate
dated 30.01.2024 issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir Vivah Bandhan
5
Trust (Regd.), Delhi , are null and void.
3. The principal ground on which the parties sought the relief was
that the statutory requirements of Section 7 of the HMA were not
satisfied at the time of the alleged marriage, and consequently, no
valid marriage subsisted between the parties in the eyes of the law. It
was thus contended that, due to non-compliance with Section 7, the
rites and ceremonies performed did not give rise to a legally binding
Hindu marriage. For convenience of reference, Section 7 of the HMA
is reproduced below:
“ 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.”
4. At the very outset, it appears to us that the joint
3
Family Court
4
District Magistrate
5
Arya Samaj Mandir
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 2 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
6
Petition/Application before the learned Family Court, or the present
Appeal arising therefrom, appears to be a novel and ingenious method
devised with the intent of circumventing the statutory rigours set out
in the HMA. It seeks to create a new genre of void marriages over and
beyond what has already been provided for in the Act.
5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the
institution of the present Appeal, as pleaded by the parties, may be
summarized as under:
(a) The parties, with mutual consent, decided to marry each other.
Since the Husband resides in London, United Kingdom, the
parties were compelled to expedite the marriage-related
ceremonies and rituals due to time constraints, and also to
facilitate the process of the Wife obtaining a visa for the United
Kingdom.
(b) In this backdrop, the parties first performed a pre-engagement
ceremony ( Roka ) on 16.11.2023. Owing to the limited time
available, they subsequently decided to solemnize their
marriage at the Arya Samaj Mandir. The marriage ceremony
was accordingly performed on 30.01.2024, in the presence of a
few family members, and a marriage certificate dated
30.01.2024 was issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir.
(c) On the strength of the said marriage certificate, along with
supporting evidence such as photographs and affidavits, the
parties proceeded to have their marriage formally registered on
02.02.2024 at the Office of the District Magistrate, Shahdara,
New Delhi.
6
Petition
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 3 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
(d) It is further averred in the Petition before the learned Family
Court that the parties had intended to perform a more elaborate
marriage ceremony, with full rites, rituals, and customs,
scheduled for 20.04.2024. However, prior to this date, serious
differences arose between them, as a result of which they
mutually decided, on 07.02.2024, to discontinue further
preparations for the wedding. Consequent upon this decision,
the parties filed a joint petition under Section 7 of the HMA
before the learned Family Court on 25.07.2024.
(e) The learned Family Court, vide the Impugned Judgment dated
04.10.2024, dismissed the joint petition preferred by the parties.
(f) Aggrieved thereby, the parties have preferred the present
Appeal before this Court.
6. During the course of the hearing before us, learned Counsel for
the Appellant submitted that under Section 7 of the HMA, a Hindu
marriage attains validity only upon being duly solemnised . Such
solemnisation, as per Section 7(1), must be in accordance with the
customary rites and ceremonies of either party. Further, under Section
7(2), where such rites and ceremonies include the performance of
Saptapadi , that is, the taking of seven steps jointly by the bride and
groom before the sacred fire, the marriage becomes complete and
binding upon the taking of the seventh step.
7. It was the specific contention of learned Counsel for the
Appellant that in the present case, no Saptapadi ceremony ever took
place between the parties. Both parties have categorically affirmed
this factual position on oath before the learned Family Court and this
Court. According to the Appellant, this singular fact is sufficient to
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 4 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
determine that no valid marriage came into existence under Section 7
of the HMA.
8. Learned counsel further argued that no independent
corroboration was necessary once both parties were ad idem on the
non-performance of Saptapadi . He emphasized that the so-called
marriage was merely a device adopted by the parties to expedite the
visa process of the Wife, Ms. Divya Goglani, for travelling abroad. In
the absence of the requisite rites, rituals, and ceremonies, the mere
execution of affidavits, photographs, and the procurement of
documentation could not, in law, confer validity upon what was
described as a marriage.
9. It was further submitted that the ceremony conducted at the
Arya Samaj Mandir on 30.01.2024 was not intended to be the actual
marriage ceremony. The parties had mutually agreed that their real
marriage, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, was to take
place later on 20.04.2024. However, due to irreconcilable differences
in opinion, temperament, habits, likes and dislikes, the proposed social
marriage functions, such as booking of the venue and other associated
rituals, were cancelled, and on 07.02.2024, both parties entered into an
understanding not to proceed further.
10. Learned Counsel also highlighted that the parties never
cohabited as husband and wife, which is another factor negating the
existence of a valid marriage. The marriage certificate issued by the
Arya Samaj Mandir, it was argued, is insufficient to establish
compliance with Section 7 of the HMA. Likewise, registration of the
marriage on 02.02.2024 under Section 8 of the HMA cannot cure the
absence of solemnisation, since registration is only a mode of proof of
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 5 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
a valid Hindu marriage and not a substitute for the essential
ceremonies themselves.
11. In support of these submissions, learned Counsel for the
Appellant placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
7
Supreme Court in Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal , wherein
the Apex Court had considered similar issues relating to solemnisation
of Hindu marriages and the evidentiary value of marriage certificates
in the absence of customary rites.
12. The learned Family Court, while passing the Impugned
Judgment, examined these very arguments at length, including the
reliance placed on Dolly Rani ( supra ). The relevant portion of the
Impugned Judgment is extracted herein below:
“ 10. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that since the marriage ceremony had not been performed in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act, then the registration of such
marriage u/s 8 would not confer any legitimacy to such a marriage.
The registration of a marriage u/s 8 of the Act is only to confirm
that the parties have undergone a valid marriage ceremony in
accordance with Section 7 of the Act. In other words, a certificate
of marriage is a proof of validity of Hindu marriage only when
such a marriage has taken place and not in a case where there is no
marriage ceremony performed at all.
11. The aforesaid order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. The power of Hon'ble
Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the
existing legal framework - to do complete justice between the
parties. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be
effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of
law. The Article provides that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such
order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or
'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in any court.
Even the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunals do not have similar
powers in absence of analogous provisions. Subordinate courts also
in India cannot exercise any such power as provided under Article
142. Article 142 of the Constitution grants Hon'ble Supreme Court
7
(2025) 2 SCC 587
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 6 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
the exclusive power to pass necessary orders for doing complete
justice in any cause or matter pending before it. This power is
supplemental in nature and intended to fill gaps in the law. This
means the Apex Court can take a wide range of action to ensure
that justice is served including dissolving a marriage on the ground
of its 'irretrievable' breakdown', while no such power is available to
the family courts.
12. The petitioners in the present case have not approached the
court u/s 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, under which the family court
is empowered to grant a decree of nullity.
13. The law of Estoppel would also be relevant in the present
context which is a legal principle that prevents a person from
denying or asserting something that is contrary to what they have
previously stated or agreed to, when such statement or agreement
has been relied upon by another party.
14. Once a party has represented certain facts on the basis of
which they have received some favorable order / document, that
person is later on prevented from denying the fact which they
previously represented as true (though it might be inconvenient /
uncomfortable to them). This law basically prevents inconsistent
behaviour and promotes fairness and justice and upholds the
integrity of legal proceedings.
15. Section 115 of the Evidence Act is as under:
‘When one person has, by his declaration, act of
omission, intentionally caused or permitted another
person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such
belief, neither he Nor his representative shall be allowed,
in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person
or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing'.
Illustration: -
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that
certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy
and pay for it.
The land afterwards becomes the property of A,
and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the
time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to
prove his want of title.
Estoppel may be described as a rule by which a person will
not be allowed to plead the contrary of a fact or state of things
which he formerly asserted by words or conduct. In plain words, a
person shall not be allowed to say one thing at one time and the
opposite of it at another time. The Estoppel extends not only to a
man's own declarations and acts hut also to those of all persons
through whom he claims. SIR EDWARD COKE defined Estoppel
thus: An Estoppel is where 'a man's own act or acceptance
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 7 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
stopeth or closeth up his mouth to allege or plead the truth'. It
means that a man is estopped from denying or withdrawing his
previous assertion or from going back upon his own act, even if it
be to tell the truth. The principle is that it would promote fraud and
litigation if a man is allowed to speak against his own act or
representation on the faith of which another person was induced to
do something. Thus, estoppel has been stated to be a rule of
evidence which in certain circumstances precludes a person from
establishing real facts and compels him to abide by a conventional
set of facts (Meherally Vs. Sukerwhanoobai, 7 Bom LR 602). The
principle of estoppel is based on the maxim 'allegans contractor
non est audiendus' i.e. a party is not to be heard to allege the
contrary. A person cannot approbate and reprobate. The object of
estoppel is to prevent fraud and to secure justice by promotion of
honesty and good faith. The rule of estoppel is considered valuable
for elicitation of truth and promotion of justice by precluding a
party from proving a state of things inconsistent with his former
representation or action.
16. Since on the representation of the parties the Marriage
Officer issued a marriage certificate, the concerned SDM was
summoned. On behalf of the Marriage Office, District Shahdara ,
DC Office, Nand Nagri, New Delhi Smt. Sarita appeared who
stated that the parties applied for online registration of their
marriage and uploaded documents i.e. age proofs, affidavit, address
proof of both the parties, Arya Samaj Certificate, Marriage
photograph and the documents pertaining to two witnesses. They
produced all the original documents along with marriage certificate
dated 30.01.2024 issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Vivah Bandhan
Trust and Marriage Photograph and after satisfaction of the
competent authority marriage certificate was issued on 02.02.2024.
In the affidavit submitted by both the parties before the
Registration Authority, para 5 specifically states that the
parties got married on 30.01.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir,
Vivah Bandhan Trust, Regd. At D-178, School Block, Nathu
Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-93 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies.
17. Now the issue before the Court is, can the parties be
allowed to take U turn and say that the marriage was not
performed in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies as
Saptapadi was not performed. During the course of arguments the
court raised its concern that if the parties are allowed to go volte-
face and claim that there was no valid marriage despite furnishing
of marriage certificates by the concerned authorities, would it not
open up the pandora box and impinge upon the sanctity of marriage
where marriages are proved through such documents in the court of
law. Marriage Certificate was issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Vivah
Bandhan Trust Regd certifying that the marriage between the
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 8 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
petitioners have been solemnized according to Hindu Vedic rites
and customs and on the strength of the certificate, affidavits,
marriage photograph furnished before the SDM, certificate of
marriage was issued. The registration of marriage and the
certificate of marriage issued by Mandir and the District Magistrate
(Marriage Officer) is treated as conclusive proof of marriage in the
thousands of litigations pending before the Family Court. If the
relief sought in the present case is granted, it will have
ramifications and cascading effect on other cases pending as the
parties to a marriage instead of approaching the court for divorce,
may challenge the validity of marriage and seek such declaration
from the Family Court. Since the court was of the opinion that it
might open up flood gates for such issues. Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners relied upon a pronouncement made by Hon'ble High
Court of Madras in K. Gnaniah Nadar Vs. Power Grid
Corporation of India, Rep by its Chief Manager and Others
2023 SCC Online Mad 1212: (2023) 2 Writ LR 47. However, the
facts are not applicable to the present case as it was a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ
of certiorarified mandamus regarding payment of compensation in
respect of a property.
18. Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act deals with ceremonies of
Hindu Marriage. On reading of Section 7 it becomes clear that a
marriage may be solemnized in accordance with customary rites
and ceremonies of either party thereto. And where such rites and
ceremonies include the saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete
and binding when the seventh step is taken. The Act thus gives
saptapadi a statutory recognition, but it does not make saptapadi an
obligatory one. Section 7 in fact does not prescribe any special
ceremony to be gone through for a Hindu marriage. A Hindu
marriage is both a sacrament and a contract. The sacrament
consists of (1) invocation of sacred fire and (2) saptapadi wherein
the bridegroom and the bride jointly take seven steps before the
sacred fire. There can be a marriage acceptable in law according to
the customs which do not insist on performance of such rites.
Ceremony means, according to the Act, customary rites and
ceremonies of either party to the marriage.
19. When a marriage is performed and marriage certificate is
issued to certify such marriage having been performed as per rites
and customs, the court will presume that it was a valid marriage
and that necessary ceremonies were performed. A person who
challenges the marriage has to rebut both these presumptions. If
the parties to a marriage seek to get a marriage declared as
null and void by a decree of nullity they are to approach the
court u/s 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act while a declaration may
be sought by a third party to the marriage.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 9 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
20. Section 5 lays down certain conditions for a valid
marriage. Section 11 clearly lays down that any marriage shall he
null and void and may be declared so by a court, on presentation of
a petition by either party against the other, if any one of three
conditions specified in Section 5 Clause (i), (iv) & (v) is violated
the court can pass a decree of nullity of marriage declaring it to be
void. These three conditions are as under:
(1) Neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage
[Section 5 (i)] a bigamous marriage is prohibited under Section 5.
(2) The parties should not be within the degrees of prohibited
relationship, unless their custom so permits [Section 5 (iv)] a
marriage hit by the rule of prohibited degrees are penal under
Section 17 & 18.
(3) The parties should not be sapindas of each other, unless their
custom permits such a marriage [Section 5 (v)] marriages between
sapindas void under Section 11.
21. Void marriages are wholly non existing marriage without
any effect. It is therefore, not obligatory for a spouse to obtain a
decree of nullity, however, when such a decree for nullity is sought
by the parties to the marriage, such a decree can be issued by a
Family Court only under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act.
The only provision which exists in the Hindu Marriage Act for
declaring a marriage null and void is Section 11 of Hindu Marriage
Act and the parties are required to lead evidence to prove that the
marriage was void ab initio. There is no evidence on record to
prove that saptapadi was not performed. No oral or documentary
evidence brought on record to prove the same. Except for the
averment made in the petition, there is nothing to prove that
saptapadi was not performed and this averment also is in conflict
with the affidavits furnished before Marriage Registrar. Except for
the self serving or bald averment there is nothing more on record
and is further impinged by the law of estoppel. The only
requirement of the ceremony called the Saptapadi gamana is that
seven steps should be taken round the nuptial fire and that it is on
taking of the seven steps that the bride and the bridegroom
becomes united in the marriage. In view of the affidavits given by
the parties, certificates issued by the mandir and the competent
office of Registrar there is presumption of valid marriage and since
the petitioners are challenging the validity of marriage they are to
rebut that presumption. The petitioners have failed to establish any
circumstances by which such presumption was rebutted.
22. Accordingly, the joint petition for a decree of declaration
that the marriage dated 30.01.2024 is not valid in the eyes of law
and consequently granting a decree of declaration that the
certificate dated 02.02.2024 issued from the Office of District
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 10 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
Magistrate, Shahdara District, Delhi and certificate dated
30.01 .2024 issued by Arya Samaj Mandir, Vivah Bandhan Trust
(Regd.) Delhi are null and void, is dismissed. However, the parties
shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum or file
appropriate petition for such declaration or nullity of marriage.”
13. On a careful consideration of the Impugned Judgment, we find
ourselves in emphatic agreement with the conclusions arrived at by
the learned Family Court. For the sake of clarity, we propose to
examine the present Appeal under various heads, as set out
hereinafter.
A. General Scheme of HMA with respect to Void Marriages,
Annulment on grounds of Voidability and Decree of Divorces:
14. It is evident to us that the HMA contains no provision that
enables a party to seek a declaration that a marriage is invalid ab initio
on the ground that it was never solemnised in accordance with Section
7 of the HMA. All provisions in the HMA that deal with declarations,
whether relating to a marriage being void, voidable, or grounds for
divorce, are applicable only to those marriages that have been
solemnised.
15. Reference may be made to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the HMA,
all of which commence with the prefatory phrase: “ Any marriage
solemnised… ”. Section 13(2) of the HMA also applies to marriages
that are solemnised. Section 13A deals with “judicial separation” and
relates to such proceedings that are instituted for the purposes of
dissolution and for which, as has already been explained hereinbefore,
the prefatory requirement of the existence of a “marriage solemnised”
is essential. Section 13B too, is only in respect of marriages that have
been solemnised.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 11 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
16. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the statutory
scheme of the HMA only provides reliefs in the form of a declaration
of a marriage as being “Void”, decree of annulment as being voidable
on the grounds mentioned in Section 12 or a decree of dissolution on
the grounds set out in Section 13(1) or (2) or a decree by mutual
consent under Section 13B of the HMA as also for a decree of
“judicial separation” only if there is an existing solemnised marriage.
17. In this view of the matter, since the HMA does not provide for a
remedy where the case set up is that no valid marriage ever came into
existence owing to non-fulfilment of Section 7 requirements, the
parties herein cannot invoke the jurisdiction of courts under the HMA
to seek such relief. To our mind, such a Petition was not even
maintainable before the learned Family Court.
B. Non-Solemnisation of Marriage and Section 11:
18. A careful reading of Section 11 of the HMA makes it
abundantly clear that the relief sought in the present case does not fall
within its ambit. Section 11 empowers a court to grant a decree of
nullity only where a marriage, though duly solemnised, is in
contravention of the essential conditions prescribed under Clauses (i),
(iv), or (v) of Section 5 of the HMA. It follows, therefore, that two
indispensable requirements must coexist for the application of Section
11; first , there must be a solemnised marriage; and second , such a
marriage must offend against the statutory prohibitions relating to
subsistence of a spouse [Section 5(i)], prohibited degrees of
relationship [Section 5(iv)], or sapinda relationships [Section 5(v)], as
specified in Section 5 and no other.
19. We also take note of the language of Section 5, which clearly
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 12 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
sets out the conditions required for a valid Hindu marriage. Relevant
portion of Section 5 of the HMA is reproduced below for reference:
“ 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;
(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;”
20. A conjoint reading of Sections 5 and 11 of the HMA makes it
abundantly clear that the remedy of nullity under Section 11 is strictly
confined to situations where a marriage, though duly solemnised in
accordance with law, contravenes the specific prohibitions contained
in the above clauses of Section 5. Section 11 thus presupposes a
solemnised marriage. The learned Family Court rightly concluded that
the Petition before was not a valid one. We have already held that
such a petition was, in fact, not maintainable.
C. Estoppel:
21. We further note that the learned Family Court correctly held
that even assuming the petition to be maintainable, the same was
barred by the principle of estoppel. For clarity, Section 121 of the
8
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ( which corresponds to Section
115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ) is reproduced below:
“ 121. Estoppel:
When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission,
intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing
to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his
8
BSA
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 13 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between
himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of
that thing.”
22. A plain reading of Section 121 of the BSA makes it abundantly
clear that the principle underlying the provision is that of estoppel,
which embodies fairness, consistency, and good faith. Where a party,
either through words, conduct, or even by deliberate silence and
omission, has intentionally created or encouraged a belief in the mind
of another regarding a particular state of affairs, and the other party,
acting upon such belief, has altered their position or taken steps in
reliance thereon, the law precludes the former from subsequently
denying or disputing that state of affairs.
23. This rule is rooted in equity and aims to prevent a party from
approbating and reprobating to the detriment of another. It ensures that
no party derives an unfair advantage by shifting its stand or
contradicting its own prior representation, thereby upholding the
sanctity of judicial proceedings between the same parties.
24. In the present case, both parties had themselves submitted
sworn affidavits before the competent authority, making unequivocal
admissions that their marriage had been solemnised in accordance
with Hindu rites and ceremonies. In addition, they produced
supporting documents, including proof of age, affidavits, address
proof, marriage photographs, and witness documents. On the basis of
these averments and materials, a marriage certificate was duly issued
in their favour by the competent authority.
25. Consequently, any prayer now seeking a declaration that such a
marriage, as well as the marriage certificates obtained on the basis of
the documents, voluntarily executed, is squarely barred by the doctrine
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 14 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
of estoppel embodied in Section 121 of the BSA.
D. Judgment in Dolly Rani ( supra ) and its Applicability:
26. We now proceed to examine the reliance placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Rani ( supra ) and its
applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
27. At the outset, we observe that the case set up by the parties
herein has been tailor-made to fit the facts of the present dispute to the
decision in Dolly Rani ( supra ).
28. It is a well-settled principle of law that courts are ordinarily
reluctant to entertain petitions where ingenious or clever drafting is
employed as a device to circumvent statutory provisions or to secure a
relief that is otherwise not available in law.
29. Judicial process cannot be permitted to be misused by artful
pleadings which, in form, appear to be legally sustainable but, in
substance, are designed to achieve an outcome that the law expressly
prohibits or does not recognise. The courts have consistently held that
justice must be founded on substance rather than form, and that
litigants cannot, by disguising the true nature of their claim through
skilful language or stratagem, invite the court to grant what the statute
itself denies. To allow such petitions would not only undermine the
legislative intent but also erode the sanctity of judicial proceedings by
rewarding ingenuity over legality.
30. A close reading of Dolly Rani ( supra ) makes it abundantly clear
that the judgment was rendered in the peculiar factual setting of that
particular case and cannot be mechanically extended to cover matters
resting on entirely different foundations. Specifically, in that case, the
parties were before the Court in proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia)
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 15 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
of the HMA, seeking divorce. During the pendency of a transfer
petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the parties mutually
decided to prefer a joint application under Article 142 of the
9
Constitution of India , praying for a declaration that their marriage
was invalid.
31. It is significant to emphasize that Article 142 of the Constitution
is a unique and exceptional provision which vests in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court extraordinary, plenary, and unfettered powers to pass
such decrees or orders as may be necessary to do complete justice
between the parties before it. This jurisdiction is sui generis , conferred
solely upon the Apex Court, and is incapable of being replicated,
assumed, or exercised by any other court.
32. The framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, entrusted this
extraordinary power only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, recognizing
its pivotal role as the final arbiter of law and justice in the country.
The exercise of this jurisdiction is not circumscribed by statutory
limitations, but it is guided by considerations of equity, fairness, and
the imperative to prevent injustice. Consequently, no subordinate
court can arrogate to itself such extraordinary constitutional authority.
33. Viewed thus, we find that reliance upon Dolly Rani ( supra ) by
the parties is wholly misconceived. The petition before the learned
Family Court, as well as the present appeal, is fundamentally
misplaced inasmuch as it seeks to draw sustenance from a judgment
delivered in entirely distinct circumstances and under constitutional
powers that are not available to courts subordinate to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
9
Constitution
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 16 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
34. We are of the firm belief that the Judgment in Dolly Rani
(supra) is being sought to be misused and converted into a regular
means of separation of parties by bypassing the statutory mandate, and
it is the bounden duty of Courts to disabuse such notions or resulting
attempts.
35. We next turn to the attempt on the part of the Appellants to
persistently contend that the Judgment in Dolly Rani (supra) would
apply omni vi to the facts in hand. We have already distinguished the
facts of the case in hand from the facts in Dolly Rani (supra) .
36. We consider it necessary to expound a little on the scope of a
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of its plenary
powers under Article 142 to disabuse the notion that the same can be
treated as stare decisis, vertically.
37. Unlike Article 141, which lays down the law of the land,
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in exercise of their power
under Article 142, are intended to do complete justice as between the
parties, meaning thereby that the same is in exercise of the equitable
jurisdiction exercisable under Article 142. This distinction is clearly
brought out in the feted judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
10
State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih , which reads as under:
“12. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in
nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they
are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a
power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice-
oriented approach as against the strict rigours of the law. The
directions issued by the Court can normally be categorised into
one, in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the
declaration of law. “Declaration of law” as contemplated in Article
141 of the Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily
implied by the highest court of the land. This Court in Indian
10
(2014) 8 SCC 883
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 17 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 72], Ram
Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar [(2006) 8 SCC 381 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 1986] and in State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1
SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190] has expounded the principle
and extolled the power of Article 142 of the Constitution of India
to new heights by laying down that the directions issued under
Article 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Article
141 of the Constitution of India. They are direction issued to do
proper justice and exercise of such power, cannot be considered as
law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India. The Court has compartmentalised and
differentiated the relief in the operative portion of the judgment by
exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution as against
the law declared. The directions of the Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution, while moulding the relief, that relax the
application of law or exempt the case in hand from the rigour of the
law in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances do not
comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore lose its basic premise of
making it a binding precedent. This Court on the qui vive has
expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the Constitution by
keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the Constitution
and by declaring it a direction of the Court that changes its
complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
38. Numerous other judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have
repeated this principle and consequently, the attempt of the Appellants
to canvass the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a binding
precedent cannot be accepted. Dolly Rani ( supra) was the result of a
joint application filed, seeking the exercise of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s powers under Article 142, which finally came to be granted at
Para 40 of the Judgment leading to the quashing of the other
proceedings pending before the parties therein, as well as the grant of
reliefs in exact terms as those sought in the underlying Matrimonial
Petition.
39. Neither can the facts of the present case be transposed into
Judgment of Dolly Rani (supra) , nor vice versa , nor can the Judgment
of Dolly Rani (supra) be held to be conclusively binding on this
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 18 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
Court.
E. Arguments of the Ld. Amicus Curiae:
11
40. The learned Amicus Curiae has, to a large extent, supported
the arguments made by the parties herein and advanced arguments
similar to those made by the learned counsel for the Appellant.
41. He has, in particular, however, disagreed with the Impugned
Judgment of the learned Family Court insofar as it held that the
petition before the Court was not filed under Section 11 of the HMA
and which was the only provision under which the reliefs sought could
have been pursued.
42. The learned Amicus has argued that Section 11 could be
invoked for the reliefs sought in this case, particularly on the ground
that a joint petition is permissible if Section 11 is read in conjunction
with Section 23(1)(c) of the HMA. We do not believe that, for the
present purposes, we need to examine this aspect.
43. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, no petition under any
provision of the HMA is maintainable solely on the ground that the
requirements of Section 7 have not been fulfilled, jointly or otherwise.
44. Our view finds further reinforcement in the deeply rooted
understanding that marriage, in Indian society, is not merely a civil
contract between two individuals but is regarded as a sacred and
solemn sacrament, carrying profound social, cultural, and moral
significance. The institution of marriage is accorded a place of
sanctity, binding not only the parties but also their families and the
larger community.
45. In this backdrop, provisions of the HMA, which permit the
11
Amicus
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 19 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
separation of a married couple through the various means as envisaged
by the statute, inter alia , annulment of marriage through a decree of
nullity, divorce etc., must necessarily be construed in a strict and
limited manner. Such relief can be invoked only on the specific
grounds expressly provided by the statute, to allow broader or liberal
interpretations would risk trivialising the sanctity of marriage and
undermining the legislative intent of preserving its stability, dignity,
and permanence except in clearly defined circumstances.
F. Lack of Evidence:
46. We next address the issue of the apparent lack of evidence in
support of the contentions advanced by the Appellant. The Appellants
have not examined the Pandit who allegedly performed the marriage
nor the individual who signed the marriage certificate issued by the
Arya Samaj Mandir. It is well settled that a party approaching the
Court must place before it all relevant material necessary to
substantiate their case.
47. Mere assertions by the parties are insufficient in matters of this
nature. As previously observed, a Hindu marriage is considered a
sacrament and not merely an informal understanding between two
individuals. It cannot be treated lightly or with disregard, as appears to
be the case in the present matter.
48. We further note that there is a clear admission by the parties
that the marriage was performed largely for convenience and that all
rituals and ceremonies were allegedly discarded solely to obtain a
marriage certificate, thereby creating a façade of being married.
49. The Appellant’s claim that the Saptapadi ceremony was not
performed imposes a significant evidentiary burden upon them. It is
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 20 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
well established that the presumption of a valid marriage is not
weakened merely due to the absence of direct evidence proving that
the Saptapadi was performed. In fact, even minimal evidence
indicating that the parties went through a form of marriage reinforces
the presumption of validity. We are guided by the decision of this
12
Court in Vinod Kumar v. Ms. Geeta , wherein it was held as under:
“ 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent has rightly pointed out
that a heavy burden lay on the Appellant to prove that the essential
ceremony of Saptapadi was not performed. However, as rightly
recorded by the learned Family Court, the Appellant did not
examine any witness to substantiate this plea. Moreover, in the
facts of the present case, the presumption of a valid marriage
comes into play, which further weakens the Appellant’s
contention…….
11. It is admitted that the parties have been residing together,
although the date of separation is disputed, and a child was born to
the parties. When a child is born to such a couple, there arises a
strong presumption that the marriage is legitimate. The
presumption of a valid marriage is not diminished simply because
there is no direct or positive proof of the ceremony of Saptapadi
having taken place. On the contrary, if there is even some evidence
showing that the parties went through a form of marriage, the
presumption becomes stronger.
13. The burden of proof being on the Appellant to establish that no
Saptapadi was performed, an adverse inference cannot be drawn
against the Respondent for not producing the marriage album to
demonstrate the ceremonies. Even assuming such an album were
produced, it cannot conclusively establish whether Saptapadi was
performed.”
50. We next turn to the various averments in respect of alleged
cancellations etc., or that there were differences of opinion as between
the parties that led to the decision to cancel the wedding. Not a shred
of evidence has been brought on record by the Appellants to support
12
2025:DHC:7620-DB
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 21 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
any of these contentions. In the absence of any evidence to this effect,
we find it difficult to accept that there are any bonafides in the
averments made in the Petition as well as the Appeal.
G. Ingenuity Calculated to Circumvent Statute:
51. We also concur with the observations of the learned Family
Court that if petitions or appeals of this nature were to be entertained,
they would create a dangerous precedent by offering a novel and
impermissible means of circumventing the statutory framework
governing matrimonial reliefs under the HMA. Such an approach
would effectively bypass the carefully crafted scheme of the HMA
relating to divorce, declarations of marriages as void or voidable, and
judicial separation.
52. We are firmly of the view that the provisions of the HMA,
particularly those concerning declarations of nullity, voidable
marriages, divorce, and judicial separation, must be strictly construed
and applied. The petition and now appeal before us, which seeks to
carve out a remedy wholly outside the statutory framework, though
ingenious, is not only legally untenable but also depreciable.
H. International Effect:
53. We also take judicial notice of the fact that in most countries, a
government-issued marriage certificate is considered a valid document
evidencing the existence of a marriage. The certificate usually forms a
vital part of any VISA application for the purpose of immigration, and
while applying for Spouse VISAs.
54. The manner in which the Appellants herein have chosen to go
about the entire business of conducting, admittedly, a “sham
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 22 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
marriage” purely for the purpose of “convenience” and to ensure the
procurement of an early VISA has been disparaged in Dolly Rani
(supra) as well.
55. To permit marriages to be disavowed in the manner as sought to
be done in the present would be to lend this Court’s imprimatur to an
act, which from the very inception appears to be tainted by malafide .
56. Not only would, in our opinion, permitting the present Appeal
or upholding even the maintainability of the underlying Petition be an
affront to our Statutory scheme, but it could well become the chosen
route of such of the ingenious, who seek documentation in support of
their nefarious intent, and thereafter, the interference of the Judicial
system to validate this malafide .
57. We believe that quite apart from the fact that the same would
bring into disrepute the system of Marriage registration and the
consequential disbelief in jurisdictions worldwide to India’s manner of
grant of registrations and Governmental documentation, Courts would
also then have to necessarily become parties to such an abuse of the
system, owing to the necessary corollary of the need for an
invalidation of the certificates themselves, lending themselves
vulnerable to the taint of disrepute.
CONCLUSION:
58. In light of the facts, circumstances, and settled principles of
law, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is devoid
of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
59. We are further constrained to observe that both, the petition
before the learned Family Court and the present appeal before us, are
the product of sheer ingenuity, a complete misadventure, and a
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 23 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06
misguided attempt to turn the settled law on its head. Courts cannot
lend approval to such devices that undermine the sanctity of the
statutory scheme and established judicial principles.
60. Accordingly, we find no infirmity or error in the Impugned
Judgment 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Family Court. For the
reasons already discussed, the present appeal is dismissed in its
entirety.
61. The present appeal, along with pending application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
62. No order as to costs.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 09, 2025/ /sm/va
v
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025 Page 24 of 24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:10.10.2025
16:28:06