A certificate of registration of marriage and not a registered contract of marriage is a valid proof of marriage

The Supreme Court held that a contract of marriage does not fulfil the requisites of sub-clause (2) of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot be taken to be proof of a valid marriage.

The above ratio was passed by the Supreme Court in the judgement of Rathnamma vs. Sujathamma in Civil Appeal No. 3050 of 2010 decided on 15.11.2019.

Challenge

The plaintiff claimed herself to be the wife of pre-deceased son of Defendant no. 1. She further claimed that since the property was ancestral, she was entitled to her predeceased husband’s share. The claim of the wife was based on a registered contract of marriage as a proof of marriage.

Held

The Apex Court after going through the contract of marriage held the said agreement is not a certificate of registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and that there is no evidence that any ceremony took place for solemnisation of marriage.

The Court observed that the agreement of marriage only stated that both parties are of same caste and with the permission and consent of both of their fathers, they have entered into this agreement of marriage. The Court held that such type of marriage is not recognized in law as Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 contemplates that the marriage can be solemnized in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto and where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptpadi, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

The Court held that the plaintiff has not led any evidence of solemnization of marriage as required under sub-clause (2) of Section 7 of the Act or by leading any evidence of customary rites and ceremonies. The Court also held that the plaintiff had failed to show any custom where marriage in a prohibited degree was permitted. The Court therefore, held that in the absence of proof of marriage with the son of the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff has no legal right to claim the share in his property.