1. Service removal based on false marriage declaration — Complaint of marriage under Hindu rites. (Para 3 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1385
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
RAJEEV SINGH, J.
Rohit Pandey - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and Other - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 4741 of 2022
Decided On : 19-09-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Divyanshu Pratap
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Ambrish Rai, Anand Dwivedi
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Divyanshu Pratap
For the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Ambrish Rai, Anand Dwivedi
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage is legally valid only if essential ceremonies, including Saptpadi, are performed. A marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir alone does not constitute proof of a valid marriage in the absence of such rituals.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act - Validity of marriage - Essential ceremonies - A marriage is valid only when it is performed with essential ceremonies of Hindu rituals and Saptpadi; merely on the basis of placing any certificate of Arya Samaj Mandir, it cannot be said that marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Marriage Act. (Paras 6, 6.1)
(B) Service Law - Removal from service - False declaration - If a marriage is not valid in the eyes of the law due to lack of essential ceremonies, a declaration of being unmarried at the time of joining service cannot be termed as false or a ground for holding the employee unsuitable for service. (Paras 6.1, 6.2)
Facts of the case:
A government servant was removed from service on the grounds of making a false declaration regarding his marital status at the time of joining. The removal was based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner had solemnized a marriage at an Arya Samaj Mandir. However, in subsequent criminal trial proceedings, the complainant admitted that the marriage was not performed as per Hindu rituals and Saptpadi, and the petitioner was acquitted of the related criminal charges.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the essential ceremonies of Hindu rituals and Saptpadi were not performed, the alleged marriage was not valid in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the observation in the impugned order that the petitioner made a false declaration was without substance.
Issues: Whether a marriage solemnized at an Arya Samaj Mandir without the performance of essential Hindu rituals and Saptpadi constitutes a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, and whether the removal from service based on a false declaration of marital status was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage is valid only when performed with essential ceremonies. A certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir alone is insufficient proof of a valid marriage if the essential rituals are not performed. (Paras 6, 6.1)
Result: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume the duties forthwith, with the period from the date of the impugned order till the date of judgment treated as ‘No work, No pay’, though without break in service.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- administrative law
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
-
cruelty and dowry
- section 498-a ipc
-
cruelty and dowry
-
offences against property
-
criminal breach of trust and cheating
- dowry prohibition act
-
criminal breach of trust and cheating
-
offences against the person
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: no valid marriage, acquitted in criminal case; Respondent: false declaration of marital status, prosecution concealment. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Marriage not proven as per Hindu rites; complainant admitted no Saptpadi; certificate alone insufficient for valid marriage. (Para 6 )
4. Marriage validity requires essential Hindu ceremonies; certificate from Arya Samaj alone not proof under Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 6 )
5. Writ allowed — impugned removal order quashed; direction to resume duties; period from removal as 'no work no pay' without break. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, what constitutes a valid marriage?
Marriage is valid only when performed with essential ceremonies of Hindu rituals and Saptpadi, not merely by obtaining a certificate from Arya Samaj. (Para 6 )
7. Is a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj sufficient proof of a valid marriage?
No, a certificate from Arya Samaj alone is not proof of a valid marriage; the essential ceremonies under Hindu law must be performed. (Para 6 )
8. Can a marriage be proved by letters, oral evidence, or a certificate without Saptpadi?
No, evidence of marriage must be cogent; letters or oral evidence are insufficient. Marriage is proved only when performed with essential ceremonies. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Heard Ms. Meenakshi Singh Parihar and Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following main prayers.
“i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.04.2022, passed by O.P. No. 3, removing the Petitioner from the services with immediate effect, as contained in Annexure No. 1 of the Writ Petition.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in the services and give him all the service-related consequential benefits and seniority w.e.f. 28.04.2022 and not to treat this removal as “Break in Service”.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected on the post of Assistant Commandant (General Duty) in Shashatra Seema Bal (for short ‘SSB’) on 05.12.2009 and was later on promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant vide order dated 22.03.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the genesis of the present controversy is the false complaints made by one Sucheta Tiwari against the petitioner. The facts of the case are that a proposal for marriage of Sucheta Tiwari with the petitioner was placed before the family of the petitioner, but the same was not accepted by the petitioner as well his family members. Thereafter, on the basis of incorrect facts, a complaint was made to the Department, on the basis of which, criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A false proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also initiated by Sucheta Tiwari stating therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner in a temple and, thus, requested for entering her name in the service record of the petitioner.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of her complaint, proceedings of Court of Inquiry were also initiated against the petitioner by the department, in which, reply was also given by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in the meantime, one report was also called from the concerned police station by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, on which, Sub-Inspector, Ramadhar Singh, Police Outpost Gadwara, Pratapgarh submitted a report mentioning that the family members of Sucheta Tiwari were willing to solemnize her marriage with the petitioner, but as per the villagers, no marriage was ever solemnized. It is also mentioned therein that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by Sucheta Tiwari has already been dismissed and in the case filed under Sections 498-A , 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, protection was granted by the writ Court.
3.2 Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all these proceedings were initiated by Sucheta Tiwari only with the intention to make pressure on the petitioner to solemnize marriage with her and, there is no evidence of their marriage, as per the Hindu rituals. It has further been submitted that in the proceedings of Case No. 1548 of 2013, under Sections 498-A , 323 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, the court below, noticing major contradication in the version of the complainant, acquitted the petitioner.
3.3 Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Balan Ghosh Vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh , 1971 (1) SCC 864, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, marriage is only valid when it is performed with essential ceremonies. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Deb Berma Vs. Kanchan Prava Devi , 1991 Supp (2) SCC 616 contending that evidence of marriage must be cogent and cannot be proved by letters or oral evidences. It has also been submitted that certificate of marriage is proved only when such marriage is performed and mere obtainin
