Court holds that a marriage based only on a stamp paper agreement lacks legal recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot sustain criminal charges under Sections 494 and 498A IPC.
The Calcutta High Court has held that a purported marriage based solely on signing a non-judicial stamp paper is legally invalid under Hindu law and cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution for bigamy or matrimonial cruelty.
Justice Uday Kumar delivered the ruling while allowing a criminal revision petition and quashing proceedings against the accused in Deep Dey v. State of West Bengal & Anr. on 9 March 2026.
Legal Issue
The principal legal question before the Court was whether a relationship described as a “marriage” executed through signatures on a non-judicial stamp paper could constitute a legally valid Hindu marriage and thereby support criminal charges of:
- Bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- Matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A IPC
The Court examined whether such a contractual arrangement could be treated as a lawful marriage in the absence of customary rites and ceremonies required under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Case Background
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who claimed that her relationship with the petitioner had transformed into a marital bond on 27 June 2011. According to the First Information Report (FIR), the alleged marriage took place through an agreement signed on a non-judicial stamp paper.
The complainant stated that the parties lived together for approximately three years. In July 2014, the petitioner entered into a registered marriage with another woman. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed criminal proceedings alleging that the second marriage constituted bigamy and that she had been subjected to cruelty.
During the investigation, some witness statements suggested that a “temple marriage” had taken place. However, the FIR itself referred only to a stamp-paper agreement.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the prosecution was fundamentally flawed because a legally valid first marriage is a necessary condition for invoking Section 494 IPC.
Since the complainant herself admitted that the relationship was based only on a stamp paper agreement, the petitioner contended that the union did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a Hindu marriage.
Under Sections 5 and 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage must be solemnised according to customary rites and ceremonies. Without such solemnisation, the petitioner argued, no valid marriage could exist in the eyes of law.
State’s Position
The State opposed the plea to quash the case, arguing that an FIR is not expected to contain every factual detail. It submitted that witness statements recorded during the investigation indicated that ceremonies such as a temple marriage might have taken place.
According to the prosecution, these conflicting claims created disputed questions of fact that should be examined during trial rather than resolved in quashing proceedings.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that a marriage based solely on a contractual document executed on stamp paper does not satisfy the legal requirements of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Justice Kumar emphasised that Hindu marriage requires solemnisation through customary rites and ceremonies, and a contractual arrangement cannot substitute those statutory requirements.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the offence of bigamy requires proof that the first marriage was validly performed through appropriate ceremonies.
Since the complainant’s own FIR described the relationship as one based on a stamp paper agreement, the Court concluded that the alleged marriage lacked legal validity. Without proof of a valid first marriage, the offence of bigamy could not be sustained.
The Court further clarified that the broad interpretation of “husband” adopted in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam applies to marriages that are technically void but performed through ceremonies. It does not apply to relationships that are legally non-existent from the outset. Consequently, the charge of cruelty under Section 498A IPC also could not stand.
Final Ruling
The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the police case. It held that a “contractual marriage” recorded on stamp paper is a legal nullity under Hindu law and cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution for bigamy or cruelty.
However, the Court clarified that the complainant remains free to pursue remedies under other laws, including the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 if applicable.
Practical Implications
The judgment reiterates that:
- Hindu marriages must be solemnised through customary rites and ceremonies to gain legal recognition.
- A contractual arrangement or written agreement alone cannot create a valid marital relationship under the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Criminal charges such as bigamy and cruelty require the existence of a legally valid marriage.
The ruling underscores the importance of statutory formalities in matrimonial law and limits the use of criminal provisions where a legally recognised marriage does not exist.
The judgment adds clarity on the legal status of so-called “contractual marriages” and confirms that agreements on stamp paper cannot substitute the mandatory ceremonies required for a valid Hindu marriage.
