The Patna High Court held that a Section 125 CrPC maintenance order and voter-list entries cannot prove a valid Hindu marriage absent proof of saptapadi and essential ceremonies.
Patna: The Patna High Court has held that a woman failed to establish that she was the legally wedded wife of her late husband’s younger brother, ruling that neither a maintenance order nor entries in an electoral roll can prove a valid Hindu marriage in the absence of proof that the essential ceremonies — in particular the saptapadi — were actually performed [Durgawati Devi v. Sachita Chaudhary].
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming a Family Court decree that had declared there was no marital relationship between the parties.
The central principle: ceremony must be proved
The decisive question was whether the alleged marriage had been solemnised in accordance with Hindu religious rites. On this, the Court restated a principle that carries well beyond the facts of the case.
Under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a Hindu marriage must be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party, and where those ceremonies include the saptapadi — the taking of seven steps by the bride and bridegroom jointly before the sacred fire — the marriage becomes complete and binding only when the seventh step is taken. The Court emphasised that the word “solemnised” means the marriage must actually be performed, with the appropriate ceremonies and in due form. Where a controversy arises, there must be proof that those ceremonies took place; absent such performance, there is no Hindu marriage in the eye of the law.
Drawing on the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, the Bench underscored the character of a Hindu marriage as a sacrament and a samskara, describing it as a solemn foundational event that establishes the status of husband and wife. But the corollary of treating marriage as a ceremony-dependent sacrament is evidential: the ceremony has to be proved when it is disputed, and it is that evidential burden the appellant failed to discharge.
READ MORE: Ankit Sharma Murder: Delhi Police To Appeal Acquittal Of Six; HC Issues Notice
Why the evidence fell short
The appellant had been married to the respondent’s elder brother in 1990; he died in 1997. She claimed that she was thereafter married to the respondent, his younger brother, with the consent of both families — a claim the respondent denied, asserting that their relationship was only that of brother-in-law and widowed sister-in-law.
The Court found the appellant’s evidence wanting on every essential. Neither she nor her witnesses disclosed the date or place of the alleged marriage, and none deposed to the performance of the saptapadi or sindurdaan, ceremonies the Court identified as vital to a valid Hindu marriage. There were material contradictions even within her own case — two of her witnesses named different priests as having performed the ceremony. Several of her witnesses admitted their knowledge was based only on village hearsay rather than having witnessed any wedding.
Maintenance orders and voter rolls are not proof of marriage
Two evidential holdings give the judgment its wider utility.
First, on the maintenance order the appellant relied upon: the Court held that a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure decides only the question of maintenance and never adjudicates the validity of a marriage. An order granting maintenance therefore cannot be pressed into service as proof that a valid marriage exists.
Second, on the electoral rolls: the Court held that entries in a voter list are not conclusive proof of a valid or subsisting marriage. The point was sharpened by the record itself — a 2004 roll described the appellant as the respondent’s wife, while a 2009 roll described her as the wife of her late first husband, the two entries being at variance. Names in an electoral roll, the Court held, cannot by themselves establish that a marriage was solemnised.
By contrast, the documents on record — including a death certificate and the maintenance proceedings — consistently established the one relationship that was not in dispute: that the appellant had been the legally wedded wife of the respondent’s late elder brother. Nothing on record displaced the respondent’s case that no marriage had taken place between the appellant and him.
On registration
The Court added a clarification on the limits of marriage registration. It noted that while a marriage may be registered under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, registration presupposes a valid solemnisation under Section 7 — a marriage registered without the requisite ceremonies having been performed does not thereby acquire legitimacy. Registration records a valid marriage; it does not create one.
The decision
Answering all three framed issues against the appellant — that she was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent, that the marriage was not solemnised in accordance with Hindu rites, and that there was no evidence establishing a valid marriage — the Court held that she had produced no clinching evidence of a valid matrimonial relationship, and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Durgawati Devi v. Sachita Chaudhary @ Sachitanand Yadav [Miscellaneous Appeal No. 316 of 2021]
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh
Date of Judgment: August 5, 2026 (reserved on June 23, 2026)
For the Appellant: Bijay Shankar Choubey and Bijay Prakash Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent: Vijay Kumar Mishra, Adv.