Essential Hindu Ceremonies and Free Consent Under Section 7 are Foundational for a Valid Marriage.

The Appellant (wife) challenged a Family Court judgment dated 21.12.2024, which dismissed her petition for annulment of marriage under Section 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

The Appellant alleged that the Respondent (husband) coerced her into a marriage via threats of suicide and misrepresentation of his background

She contended that no essential ceremonies, such as Saptapadi, were performed and the marriage was never consummated

During the trial, the Respondent failed to submit to cross-examination, leading the Family Court to close his evidence; however, the lower court still relied on his written defense to dismiss the Appellant's petition

During the pendency of the appeal, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement at the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre on 16.04.2026

The court applied Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, regarding conditions for marriage, and Section 7, which mandates the performance of customary rites—specifically Saptapadi—for a marriage to be "complete and binding"

The court relied on Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that without essential ceremonies, no marriage exists in the eye of law

Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, which requires affirmative proof of such ceremonies

Regarding evidence, the court followed Geeta Pandey v. Shekar Pandey, holding that a witness's examination-in-chief cannot be read into evidence if they fail to subject themselves to cross-examination

The High Court found the Family Court’s approach legally unsustainable because it relied on the Respondent’s written defense despite his failure to undergo cross-examination, which rendered his evidence inadmissible

The Court noted that mere issuance of a certificate by an Arya Samaj institution does not dispense with the requirement to prove the performance of essential ceremonies under Section 7

The Court observed that the Respondent produced no independent witnesses (like a priest) to prove solemnization

Furthermore, the subsequent Settlement Agreement—where both parties admitted that Saptapadi were never performed and they never cohabited—corroborated the Appellant's claim that the marriage was a legal nullity from inception

The Court declared the marriage purportedly solemnized on 16.01.2019 null and void

In accordance with the settlement, the Appellant paid the Respondent ₹2,00,000 as full and final settlement

The Court further directed that the identities of the parties be anonymized as "X vs. Y" to protect their privacy