Mumbai: The Bombay high court has rejected the plea of a man to dissolve a marriage, observing that the rituals of his marriage were in consonance with the Hindu Marriage Act. The man had claimed that as the seven ‘pheras’ or steps as per the marriage rituals were taken around burning incense sticks and not an ‘agni’ (holy fire), the marriage was not valid and should be dissolved.
However, the court rejected the plea on the grounds that the Act has not defined what constitutes the ‘agni’ around which the ‘pheras’ have to be taken. The court also upheld the woman's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.
A bench of Justices K.K. Tated and B.P. Colabawalla was hearing a family court appeal filed by a man seeking annulment of his marriage with a woman in 2009 on the grounds that he was forced to go through some of the marriage rituals. He also argued that one of the ritual of saptapadi which involves taking seven rounds of the sacred fire were not conducted around a fire but burning incense sticks and hence the marriage was not valid as the rituals were not conducted properly.
However, the woman averred that the claims of the man were false as he and his family members had participated in the marriage, which was held on February 14, 2009, and it was solemnised as per Hindu rituals.
She further averred that the man had garlanded her as well as put sindoor in her head after the marriage and also placed on record photographic evidence of the event.
She added that based on the above evidence the family court had rejected the man’s application for dissolution of marriage.
After going through the evidence and the family court order, the bench said that there was no doubt that the marriage had been solemnised with the consent of both parties.
The bench then addressed the question of saptapadi and said that while the section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act elaborated about seven steps around the sacred fire, it did not define what constituted the sacred fire, hence the seven steps around burning incense sticks did not invalidate the marriage. Thus saying, the bench rejected the appeal by the man and upheld the woman’s appeal.
The woman alsosubmitted that after the marriage on February 13 was called off, the marriage next day was held in a
Hanuman temple, which is close to the man's house. However, the man submitted that he went to the temple after he was warned of dire consequences by another woman who claimed to be an activist.
The court also took note of the fact that the man did not dispute the submissions by the woman regarding the fact that they had lived together and also had physical intimacy.
