Just putting sindoor not enough, go the whole hog to be legally wed, rules court

Utkarsh AnandPosted online: Saturday , June 07, 2008 at 11:00:30Updated: Saturday , June 07, 2008 at 11:00:30
Print Email To Editor Post Comments

New Delhi, June 6 Simply putting ‘sindoor’ (vermillion) on a woman’s head might work as ‘proof’ of a quick-fix wedding for Bollywood potboilers, but the law does not grant sanctity to such a “marriage”, a city court has observed.

According to Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Bimla Kumari, the other nuts and bolts of wedding, as laid down in the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), have to be followed for the matrimony to get legal sanction.

“Merely putting sindoor in the parting of a girl does not give a title to a man to be (her) husband,” ASJ Kumari ruled in a recent case. “For a marriage, the ‘saptapadi ceremony’ has to be performed under the Hindu Marriage Act.”

The Act, the legislation of laws relating to marriages among Hindus, says that a wedding is “complete” only after the customary rites and ceremonies, including the “saptapadi” (seven steps taken by groom and bride in front of the sacred fire). The court observed that the marriage becomes “complete and binding” only after the seventh step is taken.

The court’s observation came while deciding a case against a man accused of kidnapping a girl to Uttarakhand and raping her.

As the woman — she was found to be over 18 years, and thus of marriageable age — stood by the accused, the court acquitted him of abduction charges. But when ASJ Kumari was to settle on the rape charge, the woman told the judge that he had applied “sindoor” on her forehead in March last with intention to get married. “We made God the witness of our relationship,” the woman contended.

The court acquitted the man of rape charge, as the woman was mature and legally capable of consenting to physical relationship, but refused to acknowledge the wedding. Noting that the girl had admitted that barring the sindoor bit no wedding rituals were performed, ASJ Kumari said they could not be lawfully married under the Hindu Marriage Act. “For a marriage, the ‘saptapadi ceremony’ has to be performed, which is not performed in the present case,” the court observed, while releasing the accused. “It means they were not legally wedded.”