• Allahabad High Court asserts "Kanyadan" not compulsory in Hindu marriage

    OffBeat
    Allahabad High Court asserts "Kanyadan" not compulsory in Hindu marriage
    The "Kanyadan" ritual refers to the custom of a father offering his daughter to a groom for marriage............


    Digital desk: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Hindu Marriage Act does not require the "Kanyadan" ritual to be carried out to formally conclude a Hindu marriage, rejecting a request to call witnesses in a criminal case again.

    The "Kanyadan" ritual refers to the custom of a father offering his daughter to a groom for marriage, signifying the handing over of duty and nurturing from one family to another. According to the court, Section 7 of the Act provides only “Saptpadi” (taking of seven steps by bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire) as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage.

    Re-examination was necessary to resolve many inconsistencies in the statements made by two witnesses during examination-in-chief and cross-examination, according to the petitioner's attorney. Nonetheless, the court pointed out that a disagreement in the testimony of witnesses does not give rise to their recall under section 311 of the CrPC.

    The court noted that the revisionist's claim that the marriage certificate submitted by the prosecution mentioned that the union was solemnized by Hindu customs was noted by the trial court in the contested ruling. Reexamination was necessary, nevertheless, because the validity of the "Kanyadan" ceremony needed to be established.

    According to the high court, the court may call any witness if doing so is necessary for reaching a fair verdict in the matter under section 311 of the CrPC. It was noted that, in this instance, it seemed as though the purpose of calling witnesses was to only establish whether or not the "Kanyadan" rite was carried out.

    “Whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not, would not be essential for the just decision of the case,” the court observed. “Therefore, a witness cannot be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proving this fact,” the court said. With this observation, the court rejected the criminal revision petition.