The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that trial courts cannot insist on the submission of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual divorce proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, especially when the marriage is unregistered and its existence is admitted by both parties. Justice Manish Kumar Nigam set aside an order by a Family Court in Azamgarh that had rejected a plea to waive the requirement of filing the certificate.
Background of the Case
The matter came before the High Court after a petition was filed by a husband challenging an order dated July 31, 2025, from the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh. The husband and his wife had jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on October 23, 2024.
During the proceedings, the Family Court ordered the parties to file their marriage certificate. The petitioner filed an application, supported by his wife, stating that the certificate was not available as their marriage had not been registered. They argued that registration is not compulsory under the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for an exemption from this requirement.
However, the Family Court rejected their application, citing Rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, and holding that annexing the marriage certificate is a mandatory procedural requirement. Aggrieved by this decision, the husband approached the Allahabad High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for the registration of marriages, does not invalidate a marriage for the want of registration. It was further submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, also clarify under Rule 6 that a marriage will not be deemed illegal merely because it was not registered.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam, delivering the judgment, conducted a detailed analysis of the legal provisions and relevant case law.
The Court first examined Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It highlighted sub-section (5), which explicitly states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the validity of any Hindu marriage shall in no way be affected by the omission to make the entry.” The judgment noted that the purpose of registration is only to facilitate the proof of marriage, not to determine its validity.
The Court observed that even where state rules make registration compulsory, “there cannot be a Rule declaring marriage invalid for want of registration.” This position is further supported by Rule 6(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
Referring to several precedents, the Court reinforced its reasoning. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Seema (SMT) Vs. Ashwani Kumar (2006), where it was held that while registration provides “a rebuttable presumption of the marriage having taken place,” it “cannot be a proof of valid marriage per se.” Similarly, in Dolly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024), the Apex Court held that registration under Section 8 only confirms that a valid marriage ceremony under Section 7 has taken place and does not confer legitimacy on its own.
The High Court found the Family Court’s reliance on Rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, to be misplaced. The Court quoted the rule: “Every petition under the Act shall be accompanied by a certified extract from the Hindu Marriage Register… where the marriage has been registered under this Act.“ Justice Nigam clarified that “The requirement of filing registration certificate is only in cases where the marriage is registered under Section 8 of Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the marriage which was solemnized in the year 2010 is not registered and therefore, there is no necessity of filing registration certificate.”
The judgment also invoked the principle that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice, not to act as obstacles. Citing the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh versus Election Tribunal Kotah (1955), the Court stated, “It is ‘procedure’, something designed to facilitate justice and further its end. Not a penal indictment for punishment and penalties. Not a thing designed to trip people up.”
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the Family Court’s insistence on filing the marriage certificate was “wholly uncalled for,” especially since the factum of marriage was not in dispute and was admitted by both parties in a mutual consent petition.
The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Family Court’s order dated July 31, 2025. It further directed the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, to decide the pending mutual divorce case expeditiously, in accordance with the law.
