Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that as per the Hindu Marriage Act, the ceremony of kanyadan is not essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage.

The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that Section 7 of the Act provides only saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage.

A criminal revision petition was filed before the high court assailing the validity of an order passed by the trial court rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling witnesses.

In the affidavit attached to the application under Section 311 CrPC, it was stated that there were some contradictions between the statements given by the witness in her examination-in-chief and in her cross examination, which could only be clarified by reexamination.

However, the court noted that discrepancy in the statements of witnesses is no ground for recall of the witnesses under Section 311 CrPC.

Court observed that in the impugned order, the trial court had recorded the contention of the revisionist that the marriage certificate filed by the prosecution mentioned that the marriage was solemnized per Hindu rites and rituals, however, the fact of the kanyadan ceremony needed to be ascertained, therefore, reexamination was needed. 

The high court asserted that Section 311, CrPC empowers the court to summon any witness in case it is essential for a just decision of the case, however, in the present matter, it appeared that witnesses were being sought to be examined to merely prove whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not.

Court said that "whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not, would not be essential for the just decision of the case"."Therefore, a witness cannot be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proving this fact," court held. 

Court said that the court's power under Section 311 CrPC cannot be exercised in a casual manner on the mere asking of a litigant as this power has to be exercised merely only when it is essential to summon a witness for a just decision of a case.

Therefore, court rejected the criminal revision petition. 

Case Title: Ashutosh Yadav v. State of UP and Another