Minor’s Marriage In Court Chamber: Allahabad HC Orders Criminal Prosecution Of Advocate

The Allahabad High Court recently ordered initiation of criminal prosecution against an advocate accused of solemnising marriage of a minor girl in his chamber at the district court complex in Kanpur and issuing a forged marriage certificate.

A bench of Justices Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani directed the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to take appropriate action in this regard. 

Court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to take appropriate action against advocate Prakash Pandey (Rangesh), including consideration of cancellation of his licence to practise.

Minor’s marriage solemnised without verifying age

As per the facts of the case, the advocate, who was also the Pradhan of Arya Samaj Shivkatra/Katra, Kanpur Nagar, met the young couple at the gate of the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, and gave them his visiting card. The education certificate of the girl (petitioner no. 2) recorded her date of birth as October 16, 2008, while her Aadhaar card showed April 18, 2007. However, without checking her academic records, the advocate solemnized the couple's marriage in his chamber by exchange of garlands and putting vermilion on the girl's head. For this, he took Rs. 15,000 from the boy (petitioner no. 1).

Notably, no Saptapadi was performed, which is an essential custom for a Hindu marriage. The Supreme Court, in the case of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024), has held that registration under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not confer legitimacy to a marriage if the essential marriage ceremonies were not performed. Moreover, the Arya Samaj has also formulated its rules, regulations, and principles for performing the Vivah Sanskar wherein Saptapadi is the sacrosanct of a marriage.

How did case reach high court?

A petition was filed by the couple before the high court seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Makhi police station in Unnao under Sections 137(2) (kidnapping) and 87 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC against the boy.

On July 30, 2026, court was informed by the state counsel that the girl was a minor and the President of the Katra branch of the Arya Samaj, an advocate, had performed her marriage, which came within the precincts of the offence of child marriage. 

Taking note of this submission, court asked the advocate to appear before the court along with complete record to show how the marriage was solemnized between the petitioners. Court also directed the Secretary of the Arya Samaj to appear and explain the issue that emerged in the subject marriage.

On August 7, the Secretary of the Arya Samaj admitted before the court that he had found severe irregularities in some of the branches of the institution since his election as Secretary and had undertaken to formulate fresh guidelines to address the creeping irregularities.

The advocate also appeared but denied knowing the petitioners or having conducted their marriage. He also denied issuing any marriage certificate to them. He placed on record another marriage certificate having the same serial number as the petitioners' certificate, claiming that the petitioners had forged it.

The high court then ordered an inquiry by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, to determine whether the marriage had taken place in a chamber at the district court.

Marriage in advocate’s chamber

During the inquiry, the boy (petitioner no. 1), who had been arrested and was in jail, was brought from custody and asked to independently identify the place where the marriage had taken place. He identified a particular chamber and also identified a nearby photocopy shop from where he said he had obtained copies of documents.

The district judge found that the chamber was close to the address mentioned on the advocate's visiting card and concluded that the marriage had been solemnised there.

The high court noted that the chamber had subsequently been repainted and a flexi board bearing another advocate's name had been put up. However, the boy continued to identify the chamber after the board was removed.

The high court, therefore, opined that the circumstances established that the marriage had been solemnised by the advocate in his chamber.

Forged certificate and false statements

Court further found that although the advocate denied issuing a marriage certificate to the petitioner couple, it carried the same signature, as was on the other marriage certificate, which the advocate claimed he had issued to another couple. The high court held that the advocate had made false and untrue statements before the court and had attempted to mislead it.

The bench also noted that the absence of Saptapadi meant the marriage of the couple could not be treated as solemnised and was void. It said the advocate could not be presumed to be unaware of the applicable law relating to marriage and Hindu rites due to his profession.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Ilavarasan v. Superintendent of Police and others (2023), the high court said advocates should not undertake to solemnise marriages in their professional capacity as this could turn advocates' chambers into matrimonial establishments.

The high court described the advocate's conduct as “disgraceful and demeaning to the noble profession of advocacy” and said he had also “malign[ed] the judicial system” by taking Rs 15,000 and allegedly issuing a forged certificate. It directed him to deposit the amount with the Senior Registrar within four weeks for its return to the petitioners.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 15, 2026, with the concerned authorities directed to submit their reports.

Case title: Madan And Another v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow & Others

Order date: September 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani