Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has quashed a Vadodara family court’s order for criminal prosecution against a couple who are seeking divorce after their marriage registration, even though the marriage rituals were not performed and the betrothal ceremony was allegedly passed off as marriage.The registration took place to help a Vadodara woman move to United Kingdom through the matrimonial route because the groom was a British national of Indian origin.The UK citizen came to India and got engaged to the woman in 2023. To complete the marriage registration process, photographs from the engagement function were submitted as wedding photographs. The families also arranged for two witnesses who reportedly told the marriage registrar that they had attended the wedding ceremony.The man left for UK and never returned. The woman planned to pursue higher studies in the UK. With both parties deciding not to continue the relationship, they mutually agreed to end what they described as an engagement-cum-marital arrangement.In 2024, the couple jointly approached a Vadodara family court seeking annulment under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. They argued that mandatory rituals required under Section 7 of the Act, particularly ‘saptpadi’, had never been performed. Since the marriage had not been solemnised in accordance with Hindu law, they contended that the registration itself should be declared void.The plea took an unexpected turn when the family court summoned the marriage registrar and examined the documents submitted during registration. After reviewing the material, the family court not only rejected the annulment plea but also directed the registrar to initiate criminal proceedings against the couple. The court took the view that false documents and representations may have been used to secure the marriage registration.Facing the prospect of criminal prosecution, the couple moved HC. Hearing the appeal, a division bench of Justice Ilesh Vora and Justice R T Vachhani found that the circumstances did not justify criminal action under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to the erstwhile Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.HC observed that there was no indication that the parties had attempted to mislead the family court in order to obtain a favourable judicial order. Merely filling registration forms or making statements during the registration process, the bench held, could not automatically establish the deliberate falsehood required for criminal prosecution. “It is relevant to note that the family court has not acted upon the facts disclosed by the parties. Thus, in our opinion, the case would not fall under Section 379 of the BNSS… and therefore, the direction to lodge a complaint against the parties is not sustainable in law,” the bench observed.HC sent the matter back to the family court for a fresh decision on the annulment petition.
