Delhi HC Upholds Sanctity of Marriage Over Liberal Divorce Interpretations

In a significant pronouncement reaffirming the sacredness of the marital bond, Delhi High Court in Vivek Nagrath v. Divya Goglani, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 222/2025, dismissed a joint appeal by a couple seeking a declaration that their marriage was void on the ground that essential Hindu marriage ceremonies were not performed.

Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar emphasised that marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), is not a mere formality or convenience but a solemn and sacred institution governed by statutory discipline.

The judgment stands as a stern reminder that the courts will not permit parties to misuse matrimonial law provisions to escape responsibilities or trivialise the sanctity of marriage under the guise of technicalities or expediency.

Background of the Case

The appeal arose from a judgment dated 4 October 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket, New Delhi, in HMA No. 1299/2024. Both husband (Vivek Nagrath) and wife (Divya Goglani) had jointly filed a petition under Section 7 of the HMA seeking a declaration that their marriage dated 30 January 2024 and the corresponding certificates issued by Arya Samaj Mandir and the District Magistrate were null and void.

The peculiar feature of the case was that the petition was filed jointly by the husband and wife, not to dissolve a subsisting marriage through divorce or annulment, but to declare that the marriage never legally existed in the first place because the Saptapadi (seven steps before the sacred fire) was allegedly not performed.

Both parties admitted that their so-called marriage was performed at the Arya Samaj Mandir primarily to expedite the wife’s visa process to the United Kingdom, where the husband resided. However, before the planned social ceremony could take place, differences arose, and they decided to separate.

The Family Court dismissed their plea, holding that such a petition was not maintainable under the HMA and that the couple could not be allowed to “take a U-turn” after obtaining official marriage certificates.

Issues Before the High Court

Delhi High Court was called upon to decide the following core issues:

• Whether a joint petition seeking a declaration that a marriage is null and void on the ground of non-performance of Saptapadi is maintainable under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• Whether registration of a marriage under Section 8 of the HMA can validate a union that was never solemnised in accordance with Section 7.
• Whether the parties were estopped from denying their marriage after having obtained official certificates affirming it.
• Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025) 2 SCC 587 could be relied upon by lower courts to declare marriages void when ceremonies were absent.

Court’s Analysis

A. Scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act

The Court meticulously analysed the statutory scheme of the HMA and observed that every remedy under the Act — whether for nullity, annulment, or divorce — presupposes the existence of a “solemnised” marriage.

Sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Act begin with the phrase “Any marriage solemnised…” implying that the legislature intended to confer reliefs only when the marriage had been duly solemnised in accordance with Section 7. Hence, where parties claim that no marriage ever took place, there is no statutory mechanism under the HMA for them to seek such a declaration.

The Bench thus held that the Family Court had correctly dismissed the petition as not maintainable. Allowing such petitions would mean creating a new category of “non-existent marriages,” which is alien to the statutory framework.

B. Interpretation of Section 7 and Section 11

The Court reiterated that Section 7 of the HMA prescribes that a Hindu marriage is complete and binding when solemnised in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies, including the Saptapadi where it forms part of such customs. Section 11 allows a decree of nullity only where a marriage, though solemnised, violates specific conditions under Section 5 — namely, bigamy, prohibited relationships, or sapinda relationships.

Since the appellants themselves admitted that their marriage was never solemnised in accordance with Section 7, they could not invoke Section 11, as that provision presupposes the existence of a marriage in the first place. The relief they sought lay outside the ambit of the Act.

C. Principle of Estoppel

One of the most striking aspects of the judgment was the Court’s reliance on Section 121 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872). The doctrine of estoppel prevents a party from contradicting their earlier statements or conduct when others have relied upon them.

Both parties had furnished sworn affidavits before the marriage registrar declaring that they were married according to Hindu rites. They had also submitted photographs, witness details, and an Arya Samaj certificate. Based on these representations, the District Magistrate issued a marriage certificate.

Having secured official recognition on the strength of these representations, the couple could not later claim that no marriage existed. The Court held them barred by estoppel, observing that allowing such a reversal would promote fraud and destroy public confidence in marriage registration systems.

D. Misplaced Reliance on Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal

The appellants relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, where the apex court had declared a marriage invalid because the essential ceremonies were not performed. However, the Delhi High Court clarified that the relief in Dolly Rani was granted under the Supreme Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows it to do complete justice in specific cases — powers not available to High Courts or Family Courts.

The Bench stressed that directions under Article 142 are not binding precedents under Article 141, quoting State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883. Thus, lower courts cannot replicate the Supreme Court’s exercise of equitable discretion to circumvent statutory limitations.

The Court warned that Dolly Rani should not be treated as a precedent to regularise shortcuts for dissolving marriages. Such liberal interpretations, it held, risk “trivialising the sanctity of marriage.”

E. Absence of Evidence

The appellants failed to produce any independent evidence—such as testimony of the priest or Arya Samaj officials—to prove that Saptapadi was not performed. Their bare assertions could not dislodge the strong presumption of validity attached to a registered marriage.

The Court referred to Vinod Kumar v. Geeta (2025:DHC:7620-DB), where it was held that the presumption of a valid marriage can only be rebutted by cogent evidence. In the absence of such proof, and in light of the affidavits and certificates produced, the presumption stood unrebutted.

The judges observed that the couple’s claim of having entered a “sham marriage” for visa purposes further revealed their mala fide intent and abuse of process.

F. Protection of the Sanctity of Marriage

In a strongly worded section, the Court underscored that marriage in India is not a mere civil contract but a sacred and social institution. The HMA reflects this philosophy by allowing dissolution only on specific statutory grounds. Courts must therefore interpret these provisions strictly and resist liberal or creative constructions that could weaken the moral and legal foundation of marriage.

To quote the judgment:

“Permitting liberal or creative interpretations would risk trivialising the sanctity of marriage and undermine the legislative intent of preserving its stability, dignity, and permanence except in clearly defined circumstances.”

The Court noted that if such joint petitions were entertained, it would open the floodgates for couples to avoid divorce proceedings and misuse the system to nullify marriages of convenience. Such misuse, it said, could lead to public distrust in official marriage registration, both domestically and internationally.

G. International Ramifications

The judgment also highlighted the international consequences of treating marriage certificates lightly. Marriage certificates issued by Indian authorities are relied upon worldwide for immigration and spousal visa processes. If courts began invalidating such certificates based on parties’ subsequent denials, it would erode the credibility of India’s documentation and “bring disrepute to the system of marriage registration.”

By upholding the sanctity of officially registered marriages, the Court reinforced the principle that judicial institutions cannot be tools for undoing deliberate and calculated misrepresentations.

The Verdict

After a comprehensive examination, the Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that:

1. The petition under Section 7 of the HMA was not maintainable, as the Act provides no relief for “non-existent” marriages.
2. The appellants were barred by estoppel from denying the marriage after having obtained and relied on official certificates.
3. The reliance on Dolly Rani was misconceived, since Article 142 powers cannot be invoked by subordinate courts.
4. The appellants failed to discharge their burden of proof regarding the alleged non-performance of ceremonies.
5. Entertaining such pleas would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the integrity of marriage registration and judicial processes.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as “a product of sheer ingenuity, a complete misadventure, and a misguided attempt to turn the settled law on its head.”

Broader Legal and Social Implications

1. Reinforcement of Marriage as a Sacrament

The judgment reaffirms the long-standing Indian jurisprudential view that marriage under Hindu law is a sacrament rather than a contract. Unlike Western jurisdictions, where divorce may be a matter of private choice, Indian law regulates marriage within a moral and religious framework, demanding that dissolution follow statutory discipline.

2. Discouragement of “Convenience Marriages”

The Court’s observations send a clear message against “visa marriages” or marriages entered into for convenience. Such arrangements, the Court held, mock the solemnity of matrimonial law and risk damaging India’s reputation in global forums.

3. Judicial Discipline and Limited Powers

By clarifying the limits of lower courts vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s Article 142 powers, the judgment strengthens judicial discipline and consistency. It prevents Family Courts from using “creative interpretations” to circumvent statutory boundaries.

4. Upholding Public Faith in Marriage Registration

The decision preserves public confidence in the marriage registration system. Recognising a registered certificate as presumptive proof of validity ensures stability in matrimonial and legal transactions, both within and outside India.

Conclusion

Delhi High Court’s ruling in Vivek Nagrath v. Divya Goglani stands as a principled reaffirmation of the sanctity, solemnity, and statutory discipline of marriage under Hindu law. In an era where relationships are increasingly viewed through pragmatic or transactional lenses, the Court has drawn a firm boundary against liberal reinterpretations that undermine the foundational values of marriage.

By rejecting attempts to convert solemnised unions into casual arrangements and by clarifying the limits of judicial discretion, the Court has upheld the vision of the Hindu Marriage Act as a protector of family stability and moral order.

The message is clear: marriage cannot be trivialised, and courts will not be instruments for dissolving unions born of convenience or deceit. The law’s role, as reaffirmed by this judgment, is not merely to resolve disputes but to preserve the dignity of institutions that bind society together.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams