Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, while hearing Neha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow and Others, passed a significant interim order restraining an Arya Samaj Mandir located in Sector H, Harsh Vihar Puraniya, Aliganj, Lucknow, from solemnizing marriages and issuing marriage certificates until further orders. The Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani expressed serious concern after prima facie finding that the institution had been conducting marriages without properly verifying the age of the parties, thereby raising the possibility of child marriages being solemnized in violation of law.
The case originated from a writ petition filed by a couple seeking police protection after their marriage, claiming that they apprehended threats from the woman’s family. During the hearing, however, the Court noticed discrepancies in the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir. While the certificate recorded the male petitioner as 22 years old, his Aadhaar card reflected that he was around 19 years of age. This discrepancy prompted the Court to examine the procedure adopted by the institution while solemnizing marriages and issuing certificates. Finding the issue to have wider public importance, the Court sought an explanation from the temple authorities regarding the basis on which the age had been recorded without documentary verification.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners submitted that they had solemnized their marriage at the Arya Samaj Mandir and sought police protection on the ground that they feared harassment and false criminal cases at the instance of the woman’s parents. They contended that they were entitled to protection of their life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and requested the Court to direct the police authorities to ensure their safety.
Pursuant to the Court’s earlier direction, the Secretary of the Arya Samaj institution appeared in person and explained that the age of the male petitioner had been recorded on the basis of an affidavit furnished by his mother stating that he was about 22 years old. He admitted, however, that no documentary proof such as an Aadhaar card or birth certificate had been insisted upon before the marriage was solemnized. Although he sought to justify the practice by referring to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, he conceded that the provision does not permit reliance solely upon affidavits and that the statutory marriageable age for a male is 21 years under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The State authorities placed the relevant records before the Court. During the proceedings, the Court also examined the marriage register and the affidavits relied upon by the institution, which became crucial in assessing whether the marriages were being conducted in accordance with law.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court found several circumstances that raised serious doubts about the manner in which the Arya Samaj Mandir was solemnizing marriages. The Court observed that the institution had accepted an affidavit regarding the age of the bridegroom without insisting upon any authentic documentary proof. The Secretary was unable to identify any statutory provision or rule authorising such a practice. The Bench held that this approach was inconsistent with the legal requirement of ensuring that the parties had attained the minimum marriageable age prescribed under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
The Court further observed that the affidavits produced by the parties and even the affidavit allegedly executed by the petitioner’s mother were prepared on identical printed formats. This created a prima facie impression that standard proformas had been prepared by the institution to facilitate solemnization of marriages irrespective of proper verification. Such a practice, according to the Court, undermined the safeguards intended to prevent child marriages.
Another aspect that weighed with the Court was the examination of the marriage register maintained by the institution. The register appeared to have been written using the same pen and in identical handwriting throughout. Although the Secretary explained that all entries were made by a single employee, the Court found the explanation insufficient to dispel its concerns regarding the genuineness and reliability of the records maintained by the institution.
The Bench observed that if marriages were being solemnized without verifying whether the parties had attained the legally prescribed age, such conduct could facilitate offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. It remarked that persons responsible for conducting marriages involving parties below the prescribed age could expose themselves to criminal liability.
Referring to the ideals of Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj movement, the Court observed that the organisation was founded upon principles of truth, social reform, and adherence to lawful conduct. The Bench noted with concern that certain Arya Samaj institutions appeared to have departed from those ideals by failing to follow lawful procedures while solemnizing marriages. The present case, according to the Court, was one such instance warranting judicial intervention.
On the petition seeking police protection, the Court found that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners was not supported by any concrete material. The representation submitted to the Commissioner of Police merely expressed a fear that the woman’s parents might falsely implicate the husband and his family members. It did not disclose any immediate threat, coercion, or acts of violence requiring extraordinary intervention by the Court.
The Bench nevertheless reiterated the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, observing that if any actual threat to the life or liberty of the petitioners arose in future, they would be at liberty to approach the concerned police authorities, who would be duty-bound to provide protection in accordance with law.
Considering the larger public interest involved, the Court directed that the Arya Samaj Mandir be impleaded as a respondent in the proceedings. It further directed that unless the institution filed an affidavit undertaking to strictly follow prescribed norms for solemnizing marriages, particularly by verifying the age of both parties through valid documentary proof before conducting any marriage, it could not be permitted to continue its activities.
Accordingly, as an interim measure, the Allahabad High Court restrained the Arya Samaj Mandir situated at Sector H, Harsh Vihar Puraniya, Aliganj, Lucknow, from solemnizing any marriage or issuing marriage certificates until further orders. The decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring strict compliance with statutory safeguards against child marriage while emphasizing that institutions conducting marriages bear an equal responsibility to verify the legal eligibility of the parties before performing the ceremony.