Marriage is one of the necessary ‘samaskaras or religious rites’
The Division Bench of Madras High Court in Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri and others v. Polavarapu Veeracharlu, minor by his guardian Kodamachi Bhimanna, ILR 34 Mad. 422 has held thus:-
“The marriage of a member of the coparcenary is a family purpose; and where it is reasonably necessary on the part of a prudent manager to borrow money for such purpose, the transaction will bind the coparcenary whether they are Sudras or other classes.
Marriage is one of the necessary samaskaras or religious rites, in the case of Sudras as well as other classes. The necessity, which will justify an alienation by the manager is not to be understood in the sense of what is absolutely indispensable but what according to the notions of a Hindu family would be regarded as reasonable and proper.”
In G.Gopalakrishnam Razu, minor by mother Bangaratta v. S.VEnkatanarasu Razu and 3 others, ILR 37 Mad. 273 a Full Bench of Madras High Court has concluded in the following manner:
“Marriage is obligatory on Hindus who do not desire to adopt the life of a perpetual Brahmachari or of a Sanyasi and debts reasonably incurred for the marriage of a twice born Hindu male are binding on the joint family properties.”
In another Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in D.Srinivasa Iyengar v. Thiruvengadathaiyangar, ILR 38 Mad. 556 wherein the majority view is as follows:
“Marriage is an obligatory ceremony for Hindus who do not desire to adopt the life of a Sanyasi; and a fund for the expenses of the marriage of unmarried co-sharers should be set apart at the partition of the paternal estate.”