You are on page 1of 2



In the present matter, as per the statement of the applicant she had married to Ashmit in
Rameshwara temple near Ratnagiri hills on 14 thMarch, 1992 by exchange of garlands, the
prima fici Objection of the respondent is that if such an event took place than ashima who
claims to be a hindu must have been aware about the ceremony of saptapadi and so why the
applicant did not followed the proper marriage and just exchanged the garlands, the applicant
had no reasonable excuse to do so the statement of apllicant is baseless and vexatious, it
cannot be held prudent for any couple to avoid the major ceremomy of saptapadi specially
when such a marriage is conducted in a well hindu temple also in front of a priest who is well
aware about the fact that such marriage shall be void according to the customs, the priest
must had offered them to arrange saptapadi and also both the parties were aware about this
mandatory ceremony to be performed this only shows that the story is false. Ashmit as a
Hindu would never have just exchanged garlands nor the applicant there is no reasonable
excuse to do so. This states that the statement held by the applicant is false as denied by the

Secondly, as the affidavit produced by the respondent is sufficient to establish that the
applicant was a Christian and not a Hindu so the applicant is not entitled for any conjugal
rights as because she was never legally married to the applicant, she is a Christian as
established by the affidavit of her own and cant not marry ashmit under Hindu marriage act
and the marriage was not done with fraudulent consent of the respondent as he was under the
influence of intoxication further than also the marriage is not performed as per the special
marriage Act and fails to satisfy the Section 5 of the same Act which lays as follows ;
5. Notices of intended marriage.- When a marriage is intended to be solemnized under this
Act, the parties of the marriage shall give notice thereof in writing in the Form specified in
the Second Schedule to the Marriage Officer of the district in which at least one of the parties
to the marriage has resided for a period of not less than thirty days immediately preceding the
date on which such notice is given.
No such notice was given by any of the parties which was a must under special marriage Act
for the purpose of a legally valid marriage and so the marriage is false in eyes of law.

Section 5 is the first obligation on the parties which must be followed by section 6 (6. . Marriage Notice Book and publication) and 7 (7. Further the marriage can not fall under hindu marriage Act as the party to the marriage is not a hindu and any provision of hindu marriage Act shall not apply on her under section 2 clause 1(c) of the Act. Moreover a false consent of the respondent was taken for the purpose of marriage as he was fraudulently taken to the temple under the influence of intoxication and was not in a condition to understand the nature of the Act performed by him which is a recognized reason for failure of a marriage in eyes of law under sec So in any way under any law the parties are not recognized as married and so no question of conjugal right arises in the present matter. due to the failure of the parties to follow requirement of section 5 as a result section 6 and 7 of the same Act have been failed. Objection to marriage) of the same Act.