Two Foreigners, One Arya Samaj Wedding: Delhi High Court Points the Couple to the Special Marriage Act

Case at a Glance

A Swedish OCI cardholder who married another Swedish citizen at an Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi could not register the marriage because the online portal accepted only Aadhaar-based authentication. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court refused to examine her challenge to the citizenship and residence conditions for registration under the Hindu Marriage Act for want of locus standi, held that a citizenship-neutral route exists under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, kept the 30-day residence rule intact, and asked the authorities to consider accepting passports and OCI cards on the portal and to allow her to appear by video conferencing.

The petitioner, a Swedish citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card and living in Stockholm, married Andreas Michael Herman, also a Swedish citizen, on 14 March 2026 at an Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi, which issued a marriage certificate. She said her husband had converted to Hinduism before the ceremony. When she tried to register the marriage in March–April 2026, the online portal accepted only Aadhaar-based authentication, which she could not use.

Her representations to the SDM (Shakur Basti) and the Divisional Commissioner (Marriage) produced no meaningful result, so she approached the High Court through a power-of-attorney holder. She challenged the conditions of Indian citizenship and permanent residence applied to registration of Hindu marriages as being beyond the Hindu Marriage Act and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 25, and sought portal reforms and video-conferencing facilities. The Delhi Government replied that the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act itself was unproven and that the Special Marriage Act route, as amended in May 2023, already allows two foreign nationals to register.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can two foreign nationals who married by Hindu rites in Delhi challenge the citizenship conditions for registration under the Hindu Marriage Act, and what remedy is actually available to them?

Locus Standi, OCI Status and the Special Marriage Act Route

The Court first noted that the Arya Samaj certificate records that the marriage followed Hindu rites but does not record the religion of the parties, and that nothing independent showed the husband’s conversion. Relying on Priya Balan Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh and the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Rohit Pandey v. Union of India, it held that “the mere solemnisation of the marriage in accordance with Hindu rites cannot, by itself, establish” that the Hindu Marriage Act applies. Without that foundation, the petitioner lacked locus standi to attack the citizenship and residence conditions framed for that Act.

The Court then held that “An OCI Card does not confer Indian citizenship”; the petitioner remains a foreign national. Since the amended guidelines dispense with the citizenship requirement where both parties are foreign nationals, the couple fell within that exception and had “an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy, without any bar of citizenship” under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act. Her own earlier representations had sought registration under that Act. However, the 30-day residence requirement is jurisdictional and “cannot be dispensed with solely on the ground that compliance therewith may cause inconvenience”. On the portal, the Court found that the Aadhaar-only problem could be addressed by allowing passports or OCI cards as identity documents.

What the Court Actually Held

• The constitutional challenge to the citizenship and permanent-residence conditions under the Hindu Marriage Act was held not maintainable for want of locus standi.
• A citizenship-neutral remedy is available under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, subject to the amended guidelines.
• The prayer to register the marriage without complying with Chapter III, including the 30-day residence condition, was refused.
• The authorities shall consider upgrading the portal to accept passports, OCI cards or other suitable authentication, and shall permit the petitioner to appear by video conferencing as permissible in law.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It clarifies that an Arya Samaj certificate alone does not prove that the Hindu Marriage Act applies to a couple.
• It confirms that OCI cardholders are foreign nationals for marriage registration purposes.
• It flags the Aadhaar-only design of Delhi’s marriage portal as a barrier for foreign spouses.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Couples and NRI/OCI Clients

• Where both spouses are foreign nationals, apply under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act; citizenship is not a bar under the amended guidelines.
• Plan for the 30-day residence requirement; the Court refused to relax it.
• Ask for video-conferencing appearance where physical presence is difficult.

For Litigators

• If you rely on the Hindu Marriage Act, prove conversion or religion with independent material, not just a temple certificate.
• Do not attack a statutory condition that is unnecessary for the relief your client actually needs.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It directed that the petitioner may apply under Chapter III of the Special Marriage Act, and her application will be decided on merits.

No. It held the challenge not maintainable because the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act to the couple was not established.

It directed the authorities to consider allowing passports, OCI cards or other suitable means of authentication on the portal.

Conclusion