Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Adjudicate Disputed Questions of Fact Regarding Marriage Solemnization

The Petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that his marriage to Respondent No. 3, registered on 07.08.2025, is null and void.

The Petitioner contended that the marriage was non-est in law as it was registered without the solemnization of essential customary rites, such as Homa or Saptapadi, as required under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Consequently, the Petitioner sought the quashing of the marriage certificate dated 08.08.2025 and the deletion of the entry from official records.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy to declare a marriage null and void when the dispute involves contested questions of fact regarding the performance of customary rites.

Whether the dispute falls within the realm of public law or remains a private law matter between the parties.

The Court applied the principle of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, relying on Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which establishes that High Courts may decline jurisdiction when a case involves "disputed questions of fact".

It further applied the doctrine regarding the "impermissibility of entertaining writs" originating in private law as articulated in IDBI Bank Ltd. v. Power Finance Corporation Ltd., which holds that the mere involvement of a State functionary (such as a Registrar) does not transform a private contractual or personal law dispute into a public law matter.

The Court reasoned that the primary ground for the Petitioner’s claim—the non-performance of customary rites—necessarily requires a "substantial adjudication" of "seriously disputed questions of facts".

Under the established legal framework, such factual determinations are not suitable for summary proceedings under writ jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the marriage and its validity fall exclusively within the domain of private law, possessing no "element of public law".

The Court noted that unless a breach of contract or law by a State functionary is shown to be arbitrary under Article 14, the matter remains a private dispute that should be agitated before a civil court rather than through a writ petition.

The petition and all pending applications were disposed of with the observation that the Petitioner is at liberty to seek "appropriate recourse in accordance with law" before the competent civil or matrimonial forum.