Patna HC Dismisses Woman's Appeal, Holds Voter List Entries and Maintenance Order Cannot Prove Hindu Marriage Without Proof of Saptapadi

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissed a woman's appeal against a Family Court decree that found no valid Hindu marriage with her late husband's younger brother, holding that absence of proof of saptapadi and other essential Hindu rites was fatal to her claim of wifehood.

The Patna High Court has dismissed a miscellaneous appeal filed by Durgawati Devi, who sought to have herself declared the legally wedded wife of Sachita Chaudhary @ Sachitanand Yadav — the younger brother of her deceased first husband, Suresh Chaudhary. A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh, with the judgment authored by Justice Rana Vikram Singh, upheld a decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan on 26 February 2020, which had declared that no valid marriage existed between Durgawati Devi and Sachita Chaudhary. The bench found that the appellant had failed to produce any credible evidence of solemnisation of marriage in accordance with Hindu rites, and that neither voter list entries nor a maintenance order could fill that evidentiary gap.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Durgawati Devi's first marriage was solemnised with Suresh Chaudhary on 22 May 1990. Two children were born from that union — a son, Arun Kumar, and a daughter, Puja Kumari. Suresh Chaudhary died on 28 November 1997. The appellant claimed that after his death, and under pressure from elders in both families, she was married to Sachita Chaudhary, Suresh's younger brother, in the month of Baishakh 2002, in accordance with Hindu religious rites and rituals.

Sachita Chaudhary denied any such marriage. He maintained that Durgawati was his widowed Bhabhi (sister-in-law) and that their relationship was only that of Devar (brother-in-law) and Bhojayee (Bhabhi). He filed Title Suit No. 01 of 2011 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan, seeking a declaration that no marriage had been solemnised between them and that Durgawati was not his legally wedded wife.

Before that title suit was filed, however, there had been parallel proceedings. Durgawati had filed Miscellaneous Case No. 56 of 2004 on 14 May 2004 before the Family Court, Siwan, claiming maintenance. The Family Court allowed the maintenance claim on 21 September 2005. Sachita Chaudhary challenged that order before the Patna High Court in Civil Revision Case No. 2217 of 2005, but the revision was dismissed on 18 January 2007, affirming the maintenance order. It was in the wake of that dismissal that Sachita Chaudhary then filed the title suit for a declaration of non-marriage.

The Family Court, Siwan, after examining eight witnesses produced by the respondent-husband and five witnesses produced by the appellant-wife, along with documentary exhibits on both sides, allowed the title suit on 26 February 2020 and passed a decree on 18 March 2020 declaring that the marriage between the parties had not been solemnised in accordance with Hindu religious rites and rituals. Durgawati Devi appealed to the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 316 of 2021.

The Legal Question

The Division Bench crystallised three issues for adjudication: whether Durgawati Devi was the legally wedded wife of Sachita Chaudhary; whether the alleged marriage was solemnised in accordance with Hindu religious rites and rituals; and whether the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the factum of a legally valid marriage between them.

The central legal provision was Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which governs the ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage. The bench reproduced Section 7, noting that where the rites and ceremonies adopted include saptapadi — the taking of seven steps jointly before the sacred fire — the marriage becomes complete and binding only when the seventh step is taken. The court stated that unless the marriage is performed with the appropriate ceremonies and in due form, it cannot be said to have been “solemnised” within the meaning of the Act.

The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 587, which described Hindu marriage as a sacrament and a samskara, and emphasised the foundational role of saptapadi in the solemnisation of a Hindu marriage.

How the Bench Analysed the Evidence

The bench conducted a detailed review of the depositions of all witnesses before the Family Court.

Durgawati Devi herself, examined as DW-1, did not disclose the date, place, or year of her alleged marriage with Sachita Chaudhary. She had also admitted in cross-examination that between her marriage to Suresh Chaudhary and his death, she had spent most of the time at her parents' home, staying at her matrimonial home for only two to four months. Her husband had died twelve to thirteen days after the birth of her daughter, at which point she was at her Maayka. The bench observed that these facts showed the relationship between Durgawati and her in-laws had not been cordial.

The witnesses produced on her behalf fared no better on the critical question of ceremonies. DW-2, Rajvanshi Chaudhari, said he had attended the wedding with a village priest named Bindeshwari Tiwari and a barber named Vindyanchal Thakur, but admitted in cross-examination that he did not remember the date, month, or year of the marriage and had not witnessed the saptapadi ceremony. DW-4, Seema Devi, named the priest as Dineshwar Tiwari — a directly contradictory name — and admitted she had not personally attended the marriage ceremony and had no documentary proof of it. DW-3 admitted that his evidence was based on what he had heard in the village, not personal knowledge.

The bench found that none of the appellant's witnesses had stated when or where the alleged marriage with Sachita Chaudhary was solemnised, or whether they had been present at it. Neither the appellant in her pleadings nor any of her witnesses mentioned the performance of saptapadi or sindurdaan, both of which the court identified as chief or vital essentials of a valid Hindu marriage. The place of the alleged solemnisation was also never stated.

Against this, eight witnesses testified for Sachita Chaudhary. PW-1, his father Satan Chaudhary, confirmed that he had resisted pressure from Durgawati's family to arrange a marriage between her and his younger son, on account of the large age gap between them. He stated categorically that no such marriage had taken place. PW-2, the maternal uncle of the respondent, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7 (Sachita Chaudhary himself) all consistently maintained that Durgawati was only the widow of Suresh Chaudhary and that her relationship with Sachita was that of Bhojayee and Devar. Sachita Chaudhary stated that his own marriage had been solemnised with Munni Devi on 11 March 2005, and that he had four daughters and one son from that union.

On the documentary evidence, the bench found two voter lists at variance with each other: the 2004 voter list (Exhibit-B, produced by the appellant) showed Durgawati as the wife of Sachita Chaudhary, while the 2009 voter list (Exhibit-2, produced by the respondent) showed her as the wife of Suresh Chaudhary. The bench held that entries in a voter list cannot be conclusive proof of a valid or subsisting marriage.

As for the maintenance order, the bench was equally clear. It explained that a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — under which the maintenance was granted — is limited in scope to deciding the question of maintenance for an estranged wife. A court in such proceedings does not and cannot determine the validity of a marriage. The maintenance order and the High Court order affirming it in the civil revision could therefore not be treated as proof of a valid marriage between the parties.

The bench further noted that no marriage registration certificate had been produced under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It clarified that even registration under Section 8 would be contingent on a prior valid solemnisation in accordance with Section 7, and that registration alone could not confer legitimacy on a marriage that was never performed in the required form.

The Significance of Ceremony in Hindu Marriage Law

The bench articulated a clear position on what proof is needed when a marriage is disputed. Once the respondent denied the marriage, the onus lay squarely on the appellant to prove that the marriage had been solemnised in accordance with Hindu religious rites and rituals. The appellant had to bring positive evidence of the performance of the requisite ceremonies, including saptapadi where that custom was claimed. The total absence of such evidence — from both the appellant herself and all her witnesses — was decisive.

The bench's analysis makes plain that circumstantial or administrative records such as voter lists, maintenance orders, and bank pass-books cannot substitute for direct proof of the ceremonial act of marriage. Documents produced by the respondent, including the death certificate of Suresh Chaudhary, the voter ID card of Sachita Chaudhary, and copies of the voter list, corroborated only the marriage between Durgawati and Suresh, and showed nothing connecting Durgawati to Sachita as husband and wife.

Outcome

The Division Bench answered all three framed issues in the negative. It held that Durgawati Devi is not the legally wedded wife of Sachita Chaudhary, that no marriage between them was solemnised in accordance with Hindu religious rites and rituals, and that no evidence or material on record establishes the factum of a legally valid marriage between them.

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 316 of 2021 was dismissed. The judgment and order dated 26 February 2020 and the decree dated 18 March 2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siwan, in Title Suit No. 01 of 2011 (Registration No. 944 of 2013), stand affirmed. No order as to costs was made. Any interlocutory applications stand disposed of accordingly.