Recently, the Allahabad High Court set aside an order of the Family Court at Azamgarh which had insisted on the production of a marriage registration certificate in a mutual consent divorce petition. The Court clarified that under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registration of marriage is only to facilitate proof and not a condition for the validity of marriage, observing that “rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice and not its mistress.”
Brief Facts:
A husband and wife had jointly filed a petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce by mutual consent. During the proceedings, the Family Court directed them to produce their marriage registration certificate. Since their marriage, solemnized in 2010, was never registered, the parties jointly moved an application requesting exemption from filing the certificate. Despite there being no objection from either side, the Family Court rejected the application, relying on Rule 3(a) of the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, and held the filing of the certificate to be mandatory.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that registration of a Hindu marriage is not compulsory under the Act, 1955. It was submitted that Section 8 clearly provides that non-registration does not affect the validity of marriage. Further, since the marriage took place prior to the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, those provisions would not apply. Even otherwise, Rule 6 of the 2017 Rules itself makes it clear that a marriage cannot be invalidated merely for want of registration.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and a long line of precedents from the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, including Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, and others. Reiterating that registration is primarily for evidentiary purposes, the Court held, “Registration is not the sole proof of marriage in order to become a valid marriage… Omission to register marriage will not invalidate marriage if in fact a marriage ceremony was performed".
The Court further emphasized that procedural rules must advance the cause of justice and not defeat it. Quoting from Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah (AIR 1955 SC 425), the Bench reminded that, “Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should be guarded against… Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of justice".
It also noted that Rule 3(a) of the 1956 Rules only requires filing of a certified extract from the Hindu Marriage Register if the marriage is registered under Section 8 of the Act. Since in the present case the marriage was not registered, the Family Court’s insistence was found to be “wholly uncalled for".
The decision of the Court:
Setting aside the Family Court’s order, the High Court allowed the petition. It directed the Family Court at Azamgarh to proceed with the divorce petition expeditiously, in accordance with law, and without granting unnecessary adjournments, keeping in mind the mandate of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Case Title: Sunil Dubey vs. Minakshi
Case No.: Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147955
Coram: Justice Manish Kumar Nigam
Picture Source :
