Do away with the perception that our ancestors didn't travel far. Especially by the nineteenth century there were several forms of transportation. Horse and carriage would of course be most common, but with the advent of the railways and expansion of roads, transportation over longer distances became easier and more accessible. People also walked long distances.
I'm reminded of this gem I once came across in the Notts Guardian for 9 Aug 1849:
Leeds and Hull are just 60 miles apart. 90 year-old Nanny Fowke walked well over 100 miles to London. Certainly not everyone would have walked such distances, but keep an open mind that our ancestors may have been more mobile than we tend to think, even if they were not a person of means.
Regarding travel for a marriage ceremony, you should establish how long they may have been in Leeds. If they married by banns then one of them had to have "resided" in the parish of Leeds for at least three weeks. If they obtained a marriage license, they may have only been in Leeds for a very short time. In such case other records such as a marriage bond or allegation may give interesting insight into why they married in Leeds. Looking at my own family tree it is not uncommon for my ancestors to travel to another city to get married. In some cases, there were employment opportunities in that city which may have been one draw, but in other cases my ancestors seemed to go right back home after they were married. It does make me wonder whether they travelled to get married more privately and away from prying family eyes, but that is nothing more than speculation.
In your case you mention that the bride was originally from Leeds, in which case I think it is not at all surprising that they travelled back there to get married. Even if she had been living elsewhere just before marriage, she may have considered Leeds her home and wanted to be married where she had family ties.