The Court pointed out that the Hindu Marriage Act makes no mention of kanyadan being necessary for a Hindu marriage to be formally pronounced.

A legitimate Hindu marriage does not necessarily require the 'Kanyadan' ritual, in which the bride's father 'gives away' his daughter to the groom.

This was noted by the Allahabad High Court recently.

In an order dated March 22, a panel of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation after citing Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with Hindu marriage rites.

"Hindu Marriage Act merely provides saptpadi as an essential ceremony of a Hindu marriage and it does not provide that the ceremony of kanyadan is essential for solemnization of a Hindu marriage," the Supreme Court said.

Crucially, Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Law permits a Hindu marriage to be performed in line with the traditional rituals and ceremonies of either partner.

The clause further states that the marriage is considered final and legally binding after the seventh step is taken during saptpadi ceremonies, which involve the bride and groom walking together before a sacred fire for seven steps.

While addressing a plea for the recall of specific witnesses in a matter that was ongoing before a sessions court in Lucknow, the Court was made aware of this clause.

The petitioner had claimed that the previous witness testimony regarding a marriage certificate that was used to validate a marriage in 2015 contained certain inconsistencies.

Given that a kanyadan is a crucial component of a Hindu marriage, the petitioner contended that two witnesses—a woman and her father—had to be re-examined in order to determine if one was carried out during the marriage.

The petitioner sought to recall witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows a court to summon any witness deemed necessary for a fair trial, but their request was denied by the trial court on March 6.

The petitioner contested this trial court order's validity before the High Court.

But the High Court maintained the trial court's ruling, ruling that it did not matter whether or not kanyadan was conducted in order to establish whether or not a legitimate Hindu marriage had occurred.

"Whether the ceremony of Kanyadan was performed or not, would not be essential for the just decision of the case and, therefore, a witnesses cannot be summoned under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for proving this fact," the court ruled.

The Court further stated that the authority granted by Section 311 of the CrPC cannot be used arbitrarily or just in response to a litigant's request.

"Under Section 311 Cr.P.C., this Court is fully empowered to summon any witness; this authority cannot be arbitrarily invoked at the whim of a party requesting it. The Court stated that this authority must only be used when calling a witness is necessary for a fair trial.

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition seeking the recall of witnesses.