Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Rajasthan vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 19 August, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:37009-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1184/2024
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Rajasthan, Through Its President / Pradhan -
Shri Kishan Lal Gehlot S/o Shri Nathmal Gehlot, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of - Raja Park, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To
The Government, Department Of Local Self Government,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation (North), Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. Commissioner, (South), Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Arpit Gulechha S/o Sh. Mahavir Chand Gulecha, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of A-8, Marwar Nagar, Mahamandir,
Jodhpur.
5. Chandani Bhansali D/o Sh. Mahavir Chand Lunawat, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of 291- Arihant Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Saroj Patel with
Mr. Manish Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Adv. & AAG
assisted by Mr. Ayush Gehlot
Dr. Harish Kumar Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Order
19/08/2025
1. The dispute arisen from the fact that respondents No.4 and
5, being majors, solemnized their marriage at Merti Gate Arya
Samaj as per Arya Samaj Vedic rites and rituals on 06.05.2024.
The parties, applied for registration of their marriage, which was
not being permitted by the State.
2. The learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court, after
considering the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937 (‘the Act of
1937’) and the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages
Act, 2009 (‘the Act of 2009’), directed the Municipal Corporation to
register the marriage of the parties.
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:42:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37009-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1184/2024]
3. Ms. Saroj Patel, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave
of this Court on the ground that the order dated 21.10.2011
passed by learned Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur
Bench in Budha Ram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan. & Ors.
and the Circular issued by the State dated 05.03.2014 ought to
have been followed.
3.1. Learned counsel further submits that unless there is sanctity
to the marriage in question through abidance of the State Circular
and authentication by the society concerned, issuing a marriage
certificate would amount to disrespect to the rituals and customs
under the prevailing laws.
4. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned Sr. Adv. & AAG however submits
that subject to the prevailing laws, particularly, the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, the Act of 2009 and the Act of 1937, once credentials
of the parties to enter into a legal wedlock are verified and their
undertaking regarding customary compliance is in place, no
interference with the order of the learned Single Bench is
warranted. He further submits that the Circular issued by the
State dated 05.03.2014 ought to be complied with.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the
following:
(i) Section 2 of the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937, which
reads as follows:-
“2. Marriage between Arya Samajists not to be
invalid.–
Notwithstanding any law, usage or custom to the contrary
no marriage contracted whether before or after the
commencement of this Act between two persons being at
the time of the marriage Arya Samajists shall be invalid
or shall be deemed ever to have been invalid by reason(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:42:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37009-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1184/2024]only of the fact that the parties at any time belonged to
different castes or different sub-castes of Hindus or that
either or both of the parties at any time belonged to a
religion other than Hinduism.”
(ii) Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as
follows:-
“7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.–(1) A Hindu
marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the
customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.
(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi
(that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and
the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage
becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is
taken.”
(iii) Sections 3 and 9 of the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of
Marriages Act, 2009, which are reproduced as under:-
“3. Registration of marriage to be compulsory. –
Registration of every marriage solemnized between the
persons who are citizens of India in the State of Rajasthan
after the commencement of this Act shall be compulsory.
9. Registration of marriage and marriage certificate.
– On receipt of the memorandum completed in all respects,
the Registrar shall register the marriage in the prescribed
manner and shall issue a certificate of marriage in the
prescribed form to the person who has submitted the
memorandum.”
6. This Court has also taken into consideration the Circular
dated 05.03.2014 passed by the State of Rajasthan concerning
Arya Samaj marriages. In the present perspective, when the
competency of the parties to enter into a legal wedlock is not
disputed and they jointly sought registration, questioning the
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:42:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37009-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1184/2024]
validity of the marriage solely on the ground of non-fulfillment of
registration requirements would not be appropriate.
7. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law, it is
clear that a marriage between two consenting adults, which is
voluntary and not in contravention of any legal provisions, must
be registered. Registration of marriage is a mandatory
requirement under the law.
8. If the petitioner believes that the Act of 1937 should be
implemented along with the Circular dated 05.03.2014, it shall be
open for them to raise such contention in another appropriate
case.
9. No further indulgence is warranted in the present case.
10. Accordingly, the special appeal writ is dismissed.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
21-nirmala/-
(Downloaded on 21/08/2025 at 09:42:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)