Section 7 of the Act deals with the ceremonies of a valid Hindu marriage. It lies down that a Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. Thus, the customary rites and ceremonies of any one of the parties of such marriage must be followed. Further, the marriage must fulfil the five conditions of a valid marriage laid down by Section 5 of the Act, which has been discussed above.
It is clarified by Section 7 that where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (i.e., taking seven steps by the bridegroom and bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding only when the seventh step is taken.
It will thus be seen that the Act does not prescribe any special ceremony for a Hindu marriage. It is to be noted that even the saptapadi is not obligatory under the Act. The Act only lays down when the marriage is deemed to be complete in cases where the saptapadi is included in the rites and ceremonies of either party to the marriage.
Image Source: images.speakingtree.iimg.in
ADVERTISEMENTS:
As seen earlier, according to Hindu Law, a marriage is both a sacrament as well as a contract. The religious ceremony consists of:
(a) Invocation before the sacred fire (vivah homa or laja homa), which consists of recitation of Vedic Mantras and the formal giving away and acceptance of the bride; and
(b) The saptapadi, i.e., the taking of the seven steps by the bride and bridegroom jointly before the sacred fire.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where it is proved that a marriage was in fact performed, the Court will presume that it is a valid marriage. (Fakirgauda v. Gangi, 2 Bom. at page 277.) Where it is shown to the Court that a marriage has in fact taken place, this gives rise to a dual presumption, viz., that all the legal formalities of the marriage have been complied with, and also that all the necessary ceremonies have been performed. It would be for the persons who challenge the validity of such a marriage to rebut these presumptions. (Sitabai v. Vithabai, 1958 Nagpur Law Journal 10)