LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a marriage is valid when not performed with proper ceremonies and customs, and if the parties are within prohibited degrees of relationship.
CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute
Case Name: Rathnamma & Ors. vs. Sujathamma & Ors.
Judgment Date: 15 November 2019
Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1234
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a mere agreement of marriage, without customary rites and ceremonies, establish a valid marriage for claiming inheritance rights? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a property dispute, ultimately ruling against the claimant. The court emphasized the necessity of proving a valid marriage through customary rites and adherence to legal conditions, especially when dealing with claims of inheritance. This judgment clarifies the legal requirements for establishing a valid Hindu marriage and its implications on property rights. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute within a family. Sonnappa, the original owner of the property, had two sons, Hanumanthappa and Venkatarayappa, and three daughters. Sujathamma, the plaintiff, claimed to be married to Hanumanthappa and sought a share in Sonnappa’s property as his widow. Sujathamma is the daughter of Sonnamma who is the daughter of Sonnappa. Thus, Sujathamma is the maternal grand-daughter of Sonnappa.
Sujathamma claimed that she married Hanumanthappa on March 7, 1986. Hanumanthappa passed away on October 15, 1986, within eight months of the alleged marriage. The defendants, including Venkatarayappa and other family members, contested the marriage, stating that Hanumanthappa was not in a fit state to marry due to health issues and that Sujathamma was underage at the time. They also argued that no proper marriage ceremonies were performed.
The defendants contended that Sujathamma’s claim was a ploy to grab the property, especially since she was only about 14 years old at the time of Hanumanthappa’s death. They also pointed out that Sujathamma is the grand-daughter of Sonnappa and thus, the claim of her marrying her uncle is not valid.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 7, 1986 | Alleged marriage agreement between Sujathamma and Hanumanthappa. |
| June 20, 1966 | Date of Birth of Hanumanthappa. |
| June 5, 1975 | Date of Birth of Sujathamma as per school records (Ex.D/3). |
| October 15, 1986 | Death of Hanumanthappa. |
| April 3, 2008 | High Court of Karnataka dismisses the second appeal. |
| July 2, 2005 | First Appellate Court decrees the suit for partition. |
| November 15, 2019 | Supreme Court of India allows the appeal and restores the judgment of the trial court. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court initially dismissed Sujathamma’s suit, holding that the marriage was void because both parties were underage at the time of registration and no proper marriage ceremonies were performed. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, stating that the age of marriage was only directory and not mandatory and that the marriage was valid, and thus decreed the suit. The High Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s decision, stating that since the defendants had denied the marriage, they could not argue that it was not a valid marriage. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the following provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
✓ Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which specifies the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage, including the mental capacity of the parties, the absence of prohibited relationships, and the absence of sapinda relationships, unless custom permits.
The relevant parts of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are:
“5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage. –
(i)xxxxxx
(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party,-
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent of it in
consequence of unsoundness of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent has
been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind
or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and
the procreation of children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity
or epilepsy;
(iii)xxxxxx
(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of
prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage
governing each of them permits of a marriage
between the two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other,
unless the custom or usage governing each of them
permits of a marriage between the two;”
✓ Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which outlines the ceremonies for a Hindu marriage, stating that a marriage can be solemnized according to customary rites and that if the rites include saptapadi, the marriage is complete when the seventh step is taken.
The relevant parts of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are:
“7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.- (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.”
✓ Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which declares marriages that contravene the conditions in clauses (i), (iv), and (v) of Section 5 as null and void.
The relevant parts of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are:
“11. Void marriages. – Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v), Section 5.”
The court also referred to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the burden of proof, stating that it lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were presented.
The relevant parts of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are:
“102. On whom burden of proof lies.—The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.”
Arguments
The plaintiff, Sujathamma, argued that she was legally married to Hanumanthappa based on an agreement of marriage registered on March 7, 1986. She presented witnesses who testified to the marriage and a photograph of her with Hanumanthappa. She claimed that as Hanumanthappa’s wife, she was entitled to his share of the property.
The defendants argued that the marriage was invalid because:
- There was no valid marriage as per Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as no customary rites or ceremonies were performed.
- Sujathamma was underage at the time of the alleged marriage.
- Hanumanthappa was not in a fit state to marry due to his health conditions.
- The marriage was within prohibited degrees of relationship as Sujathamma is the grand-daughter of Sonnappa and thus, the claim of her marrying her uncle is not valid.
- The alleged marriage agreement was a concocted document to grab the property.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Plaintiff) | Sub-Submissions (Defendants) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Marriage |
|
|
| Entitlement to Property |
|
|
The innovativeness of the argument by the defendants was that they pointed out that the plaintiff was the grand-daughter of the first defendant and thus, the claim of her marrying her uncle was not valid.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the plaintiff is the wife of late Hanumanthappa.
The sub-issue that the court dealt with was:
- Whether the alleged marriage, which was between persons of less than 21 and 18 years and within prohibited degrees, is a valid marriage.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the plaintiff is the wife of late Hanumanthappa. | No | The plaintiff failed to prove a valid marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There was no evidence of customary rites or ceremonies, and the marriage was within prohibited degrees of relationship. |
| Whether the alleged marriage, which was between persons of less than 21 and 18 years and within prohibited degrees, is a valid marriage. | No | The marriage was in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and thus, it is a void marriage. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
✓ Varada Bhavanarayana Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1715]: The Supreme Court of India cited this case to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given.
✓ Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya Gupta & Ors. [(2008) 13 SCC 119]: This case was cited to highlight that a custom must be proved by the party relying on it and cannot be extended by analogy.
✓ Mookka Kone v. Ammakutti Ammal [AIR 1928 Mad 299]: This case was cited to emphasize that where custom is set up to prove that it is at variance with the ordinary law, it has to be proved that it is not opposed to public policy and that it is ancient, invariable, continuous, notorious, not expressly forbidden by the legislature and not opposed to morality or public policy.
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
✓ Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: The Court examined the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage, particularly the clauses related to prohibited degrees of relationship.
✓ Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: The Court referred to this provision to discuss the necessary ceremonies for a valid Hindu marriage.
✓ Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: The Court used this provision to declare the marriage as void due to contravention of conditions specified in Section 5.
✓ Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872: The Court relied on this section to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact.
| Authority | How the Authority was used |
|---|---|
| Varada Bhavanarayana Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1715], Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence were given. |
| Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya Gupta & Ors. [(2008) 13 SCC 119], Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight that a custom must be proved by the party relying on it and cannot be extended by analogy. |
| Mookka Kone v. Ammakutti Ammal [AIR 1928 Mad 299], High Court of Judicature at Madras | Cited to emphasize that where custom is set up to prove that it is at variance with the ordinary law, it has to be proved that it is not opposed to public policy and that it is ancient, invariable, continuous, notorious, not expressly forbidden by the legislature and not opposed to morality or public policy. |
| Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Examined the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage, particularly the clauses related to prohibited degrees of relationship. |
| Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Discussed the necessary ceremonies for a valid Hindu marriage. |
| Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Used to declare the marriage as void due to contravention of conditions specified in Section 5. |
| Section 102, Evidence Act, 1872 | Relied on to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff’s submission that the marriage was valid based on the agreement of marriage. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the agreement of marriage is not a proof of marriage as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. |
| Plaintiff’s submission that she is entitled to the property as the wife of Hanumanthappa. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that since the marriage is not valid, she is not entitled to any share in the property. |
| Defendants’ submission that there was no valid marriage as no customary rites or ceremonies were performed. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the marriage as per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. |
| Defendants’ submission that the marriage was within prohibited degrees of relationship. | The Court accepted this submission, stating that the marriage was in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and thus, it is a void marriage. |
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a valid marriage with Hanumanthappa. The Court emphasized that mere registration of an agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court stated that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence of customary rites and ceremonies or any custom permitting marriage within prohibited degrees.
The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in stating that since the defendants denied the marriage, they could not argue that it was not valid. The burden of proving the marriage was on the plaintiff, which she failed to do. The Court stated that the marriage was in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and thus, it is a void marriage.
The Court relied on Varada Bhavanarayana Rao v. State of A.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1715]* to highlight that the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact and that the plaintiff failed to discharge that burden.
The Court also relied on Salekh Chand (Dead) by LRs v. Satya Gupta & Ors. [(2008) 13 SCC 119]* to emphasize that a custom must be proved by the party relying on it and cannot be extended by analogy.
The Court stated that in the absence of any pleading or proof of custom, the argument that in Vokkaliga community, such marriage can be performed cannot be accepted as no judicial precedent was brought to the notice of the Court that such a custom exists in the Vokkaliga community nor there is any instance quoted in evidence of existence of such custom.
The Court stated that the plaintiff’s marriage was void as it contravened Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it was within prohibited degrees of relationship and there was no proof of customary rites and ceremonies.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.
“The plaintiff has not led any evidence of solemnization of marriage as provided under sub-clause (2) of Section 7 of the Act or by leading any evidence of customary rites and ceremonies.”
“The burden to prove marriage was on the Plaintiff alone. The defendants have denied marriage of the Plaintiff, therefore, the burden to prove marriage was on the plaintiff alone.”
“In the absence of customary ceremonies or the custom permitting marriage between the prohibited degree, the plaintiff has no legal right to claim the share in the property only on the basis that some of the witnesses produced by her admitted that she married Hanumanthappa.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence supporting a valid marriage between the plaintiff and Hanumanthappa. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for a valid Hindu marriage, particularly the performance of customary rites and ceremonies as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the conditions specified in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of such ceremonies or any custom permitting marriage within prohibited degrees of relationship. The Court also stressed that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to establish the marriage, which she failed to do.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of evidence of customary rites and ceremonies | 40% |
| Marriage within prohibited degrees of relationship | 30% |
| Failure to discharge the burden of proof | 20% |
| Lack of custom permitting such marriage | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal framework and the plaintiff’s failure to meet the evidentiary burden. The court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the lack of evidence of marriage ceremonies and the relationship between the parties, but the legal requirements for a valid Hindu marriage were the primary drivers of the decision.
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Whether the plaintiff is the wife of late Hanumanthappa
Plaintiff claims marriage based on agreement (Ex.P/1) and witnesses
Court examines Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (customary rites)
No evidence of customary rites or ceremonies
Court examines Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (prohibited degrees)
Marriage within prohibited degrees of relationship
Plaintiff failed to prove valid marriage
Marriage is void
Plaintiff is not the wife of Hanumanthappa
Key Takeaways
- A mere agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove a valid Hindu marriage.
- Customary rites and ceremonies are essential for a valid Hindu marriage as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Marriages within prohibited degrees of relationship are void under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless a custom permits it.
- The burden of proof lies on the person asserting a fact, in this case, the plaintiff had to prove her marriage.
- Courts will not recognize a marriage based on a custom unless it is pleaded and proven with sufficient evidence.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for a valid Hindu marriage, particularly when inheritance rights are involved. It also highlights that a party claiming a custom must prove its existence with sufficient evidence.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a Hindu marriage to be valid, it must be solemnized with customary rites and ceremonies as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and must not contravene the conditions specified in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case clarifies that a mere agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove a valid marriage, especially when inheritance rights are involved. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new principle of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision and restoring the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that Sujathamma failed to prove a valid marriage with Hanumanthappa, as she did not provide evidence of customary rites or ceremonies and the marriage was within prohibited degrees of relationship. Therefore, she was not entitled to a share in the property. This case emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legal requirements for a valid Hindu marriage, especially when claiming inheritance rights.
Category:
✓ Hindu Law
✓ Marriage
✓ Customary Rites
✓ Prohibited Relationship
✓ Property Dispute
✓ Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
✓ Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
✓ Section 7, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
✓ Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
FAQ
Q: What is required for a valid Hindu marriage?
A: A valid Hindu marriage requires customary rites and ceremonies as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. If the rites include saptapadi, the marriage is complete when the seventh step is taken. Additionally, the marriage must not contravene the conditions specified in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, such as being within prohibited degrees of relationship.
Q: What happens if a marriage is within prohibited degrees of relationship?
A: A marriage within prohibited degrees of relationship is void under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, unless a custom permits it.
Q: Is a registered agreement of marriage enough to prove a valid marriage?
A: No, a registered agreement of marriage is not sufficient to prove a valid Hindu marriage. Customary rites and ceremonies must be performed as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Q: Who has the burden of proving a marriage in a legal dispute?
A: The burden of proof lies on the person asserting the marriage. In this case, the plaintiff had to prove that she was validly married to Hanumanthappa.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal requirements for a valid Hindu marriage, especially when claiming inheritance rights. It highlights that a mere agreement of marriage is not sufficient and that customary rites and ceremonies are essential.