What is section 7a of hindu marriage act 1955

The question as to whether "Saptapadi" is an essential ritual to be performed, came up for consideration of this Court in some cases. One of the earliest decisions of this Court is 1971 (1) SCC 864 [Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh] wherein it was held that the second marriage should be a valid one according to the law applicable to the parties. In that case, there was no evidence regarding the performance of the essential ceremonies, namely, "Datta Homa" and "Saptapadi". In paragraph 25 of the judgment, it was held that the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have categorically found that "Homo" and "Saptapadi" are the essential rites for a marriage according to the law governing the parties and there is no evidence that these two essential ceremonies have been performed when the respondent is stated to have married Sandhya Rani. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph 9 of the judgment it is stated that both sides agreed that according to the law prevalent amongst the parties, "Homo" and "Saptapadi" were essential rites to be performed to constitute a valid marriage. Before this Court also, the parties on either side agreed that according to the law prevalent among them, "Homo" and "Saptapadi" were essential rites to be performed for solemnization of the marriage and there was no specific evidence regarding the performance of these two essential ceremonies.

In 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 616 [Santi Deb Berma vs. Kanchan Prava Devi] also, the appellant was acquitted by this Court as there was no proof of a valid marriage as the ceremonial "Saptapadi" was not performed. This Court noticed in this case also that the High Court proceeded on the footing that according to the parties, performance of "Saptapadi" is one of the essential ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage.

Another decision on this point is 1994 (5) SCC 545 [Laxmi Devi vs. Satya Narayan & Ors.] wherein, this Court, relying on an earlier decision in [1971] 1 SCC 864 (supra), held that there was no proof that "Saptapadi" was performed and therefore, there was no valid second marriage and that no offence of bigamy was committed.

In the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court, it has been held that if the parties to the second marriage perform traditional Hindu form of marriage, "Saptapadi" and "Datta Homa" are essential ceremonies and without there being these two ceremonies, there would not be a valid marriage.

"Saptapadi" was held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in cases where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them that was an essential ceremony

"Saptapadi" is an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in case where it is admitted by the parties entering into the marriage that it is an essential ritual to be performed for the marriage as appear personal law or form of marriage applicable to them- Section 7(A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (as inserted by the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu Amedement) Act 1967), validates the marriage performed between the parties concerned by garlanding each other or putting a ring upon any finger of the other or tying a thail - So second marriage entered into by the appellant-accused with another women. Under the said Act without ceremony of Saptapadi, was a valid marriage

Section 7 of the HMA refers to Saptapadi.  Section 7A is a special amendment which is applicable only to the states of Pondicherry and Tamil Nadu which recognizes the different rituals undertaken there. 

Can a person solemized under section 7A of the Hindu Marriage act register their marriage in any state other than Pondicherry & Tamil Nadu