The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ for striking down Section 5 (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HMA’) The Court observed that the Petitioner was unable to prove the existence of custom in the facts of her case and has relied upon the consent of parents which cannot take the place of custom.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner’s marriage with her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was solemnized with the mutual consent of the families and by conducting the religious ceremony in the presence of members of the civil society, Mr. Gagan Grover succeeded in having the marriage declared null and void by seeking a declaration from a competent Court under Section 5(v) of the HMA Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that the Petitioner became a victim of a fraud perpetrated by Mr. Gagan Grover and his family members who induced her to believe in the validity of their marriage but have since been released from legal obligations associated with a valid marriage due to the invocation of the impugned Section of the HMA Act.
It was argued that marriages amongst blood relatives is an established practice in southern states of India more specifically in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Hence, Section 5(v) of the HMA should be struck down.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Petitioner sought to allege that the existence of the said provision is an instrumentality of exploitation in the hands of men such as her distant cousin. No other grounds for challenging the constitutional validity of the impugned Section were raised.
The Court expounded that a Statute can be declared unconstitutional only in cases wherein the Legislature did not have the legislative competence to pass such a Statute or that the provisions of the Statute violate the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India or that the Legislature concerned has abdicated its essential legislative function or that the impugned provision is arbitrary, unreasonable or vague in any manner.
It was held that the choice of a partner in marriage is not absolute and is subject to regulations, which include the exclusions to prohibited degrees. Section 5(v) of the HMA Act is the State’s intent on societal reform through codification. The Court opined that the impugned section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the exception in the impugned Section is only for marriages between persons based on custom having the force of law, which requires stringent proof and its existence is to be adjudicated upon by Court of law.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the Petitioner has failed to set out any grounds for challenging the prohibition encapsulated in the impugned Section.
Case Title: Neetu Grover v Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Case No.: W.P.(C) 910/2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Tushar Kumar, Mr. Junaid Qureshi, Ms. Dishani Guha, Ms. Varnika Bajaj and Mr. Rishub Kapoor
Advocates for the Respondents: Advs. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Mr. Akhil Hasija, and Ms. Archana Surve
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
