Marriage and the law (Inter-faith): India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Judiciary on Inter-faith marriages */

2025-07-31T15:41:42Z

‎Judiciary on Inter-faith marriages

Jyoti: /* 30-day notice period a hurdle */

2023-04-29T07:30:51Z

‎30-day notice period a hurdle

Jyoti: /* Marrying person of choice fundamental right */

2021-09-26T06:05:26Z

‎Marrying person of choice fundamental right

Pdewan: /* Marrying person of choice fundamental right */

2021-09-17T16:42:23Z

‎Marrying person of choice fundamental right

Jyoti: /* Marrying person of choice fundamental right */

2020-12-05T20:24:19Z

‎Marrying person of choice fundamental right

Jyoti: /* Marriage with Muslim: India */

2020-12-05T20:24:08Z

‎Marriage with Muslim: India

Jyoti: /* Marriage with Muslim: India */

2020-12-05T20:23:42Z

‎Marriage with Muslim: India

Pdewan: /* Bride must convert to Muslims: HC */

2020-12-01T22:54:44Z

‎Bride must convert to Muslims: HC

Jyoti at 22:02, 12 February 2018

2018-02-12T22:02:03Z

Jyoti: /* Parsi-Hindu marriage */

2017-12-15T06:07:10Z

‎Parsi-Hindu marriage

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 =Judiciary on Inter-faith marriages=
 ==Marriage with Muslim: India==
 ===Bride must convert to Islam: HC===
@@ Line 72: / Line 86: @@
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
 [[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 Tiwari says that getting protection is also a cumbersome process as in most states couples have to approach the high court, which is both expensive and time-consuming. Desperation also makes them easy prey for touts and middlemen who may charge between Rs 50,000 and Rs 1 lakh for a quick-fix wedding.
 [[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
-[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
+[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
-[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
+[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 “Ramya G, being a software engineer, is capable of taking a decision regarding her life. The Mahila Dakshata Samithi is directed to release her forthwith,” the bench observed.
-[[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
+===Allahabad HC: 2021 ===
-MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
+[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/09/17&entity=Ar02021&sk=5220D655&mode=text  Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Sep 17, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
-MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
+Observing that adults have the right to choose their life partner irrespective of the religion professed by them, the Allahabad high court on Thursday granted protection to an interfaith couple from Gorakhpur. In such a case, not even their parents could object to the relationship, the court said.
-[[Category:Name|ALPHABETMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
-MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
+The court granted protection to the couple and directed the police to ensure that the petitioners were not subjected to any harassment by the father of the girl or by any other person in connection with their relationship with each other.
-[[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
-MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
+Hearing a petition jointly filed by Shifa Hasan and her Hindu partner, a division bench comprising justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and justice Deepak Verma observed, “As the present petition is a joint one by the two individuals who claim to be in love with each other and are major, therefore, in our considered opinion, nobody, not even their parents, could object to their relationship.”
 [[Category:India|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIAMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ==Marrying person of choice fundamental right==
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/marrying-person-of-choice-fundamental-right-karnataka-hc/articleshow/79520342.cms December 2, 2020: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 61: / Line 62: @@
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
 [[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]

@@ Line 36: / Line 36: @@
 ‘‘Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran,’’ the court ruled.
-===Marrying person of choice fundamental right===
+==Marrying person of choice fundamental right==
 [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/marrying-person-of-choice-fundamental-right-karnataka-hc/articleshow/79520342.cms December 2, 2020: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]
 [[Category:Society|MMARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA
 MARRIAGE AND THE LAW (INTER-FAITH): INDIA]]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Allahabad: In a judgment with far-reaching implications, the Allahabad high court has ruled that a non-Muslim bride must convert to Islam to marry a Muslim. Failing that, the matrimony with a Muslim man would be void as it would contradict Islamic dicta and tenets of the Quran, the court said.
-The ruling on Monday by a division bench comprising Justices Vinod Prasad and Rajesh Chandra, came on a writ petition filed by Dilbar Habib Siddiqui. The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered against him on March 17 under sections 323, 366 and 363 of IPC with Naini PS, Allahabad and prayed the court not interfere in his peaceful matrimonial life with Khushboo Jaiswal. The judges directed a speedy probe into the marriage of Siddiqui and ordered the cops to separate Khushboo Jaiswal, who was lodged in Nari Niketan, and hand her over to her parents.
+The ruling  by a division bench comprising Justices Vinod Prasad and Rajesh Chandra, came on a writ petition filed by Dilbar Habib Siddiqui. The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered against him on March 17 under sections 323, 366 and 363 of IPC with Naini PS, Allahabad and prayed the court not interfere in his peaceful matrimonial life with Khushboo Jaiswal. The judges directed a speedy probe into the marriage of Siddiqui and ordered the cops to separate Khushboo Jaiswal, who was lodged in Nari Niketan, and hand her over to her parents.
 The primary question for adjudication was on whether the FIR could be quashed or not. A perusal of the contents of the FIR indicated that Khushboo Jaiswal was alleged to have been abducted by the petitioner three months prior to its lodging. However, the petitioner had succeeded in preventing the FIR from being registered. The FIR was filed by the girl’s mother, Sunita Jaiswal, who alleged that the petitioner had abducted her daughter.
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 Tiwari says that getting protection is also a cumbersome process as in most states couples have to approach the high court, which is both expensive and time-consuming. Desperation also makes them easy prey for touts and middlemen who may charge between Rs 50,000 and Rs 1 lakh for a quick-fix wedding.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 =Judiciary on Inter-faith marriages=
 ==Marriage with Muslim: India==
-===Bride must convert to Muslims: HC===
+===Bride must convert to Islam: HC===
 ''' ‘Bride must convert to marry Muslim’ '''
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ‘‘Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran,’’ the court ruled.
 =Special Marriages Act (SMA)=

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:02, 12 February 2018
Line 35:		Line 35:

	‘‘Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran,’’ the court ruled.		‘‘Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran,’’ the court ruled.
		+
		+	=Special Marriages Act (SMA)=
		+	== 30-day notice period a hurdle==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F02%2F11&entity=Ar01901&sk=178CBFCF&mode=text Himanshi Dhawan, February 11, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	'''How a law is coming in the way of love marriages'''
		+
		+	A week after they eloped, X and Y ran out of money. They had given Rs 15,000 to a lawyer to get married quickly but he had cheated them. They had not eaten in four days. Desperate and scared, the two needed to escape Rajasthan before their families caught up with them. X, a Muslim, thought it was safer to come to Delhi with his Hindu brideto-be and opt for a religious wedding even though they didn’t want to convert.
		+
		+	Ironically, the Special Marriages Act (SMA), a law meant to facilitate inter-faith and intercaste marriages, has become a hurdle for couples as it mandates a 30-day notice period before the marriage is solemnised. During that time, the administration puts out a notice to inform the public of the marriage, with the full name and address of the couple, sometimes even a picture, and also sends a notice to the address of the two people intending to marry.
		+
		+	In a city like Delhi, a public notice may not elicit much reaction, but in smaller towns with close-knit communities it can be a red flag. “Putting up a notice at the district administration office or sending a notice to the person’s home makes couples vulnerable to vigilante groups, busybodies or just people who think they mean well,’’ says Vikas Tiwari, a Delhi-based lawyer. For instance, if there is a notice about a “Sharma’’ girl marrying a Muslim boy, even the office clerks and peons take it upon themselves to call up the family acting as “well-wishers’’ while vigilante groups decide to visit the family to intimidate them.
		+
		+	“If the Supreme Court has recognised live-in relationships and there is no bar on that, why do two consenting adults need to announce their intention to marry and take permission from society? It is completely absurd,” Tiwari says, adding that the notice period should be shortened. In case either of the adults is cheating (is already married) or of unsound mind or guilty of any violations, there are provisions in law to deal with such situations, he points out.
		+
		+	Asif Iqbal, co-founder of Dhanak, a support group for inter-faith couples, has seen many couples succumb to pressure and opt for a religious marriage because they fear being caught and separated.
		+
		+	In Delhi, he says, after the application for SMA has been put online the waiting period is close to 40-45 days, aggravating problems for a fleeing couple. “In comparison, if a couple gets either a nikah or an Arya Samaj wedding, they can be married and have it registered within a day. In a way you are forcing people to convert when there is no real desire to,” Iqbal says.
		+
		+	Tiwari says that getting protection is also a cumbersome process as in most states couples have to approach the high court, which is both expensive and time-consuming. Desperation also makes them easy prey for touts and middlemen who may charge between Rs 50,000 and Rs 1 lakh for a quick-fix wedding.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 15 December 2017
Line 35:		Line 35:

	‘‘Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran,’’ the court ruled.		‘‘Thus, what is conspicuously clear is that Khushboo Jaiswal never converted and embraced Islam and therefore her marital tie with the petitioner Dilbar Habib Siddiqui is a void marriage since the same is contrary to Islamic dicta and tenets of Holy Quran,’’ the court ruled.
−
−	~~==Parsi-Hindu marriage==~~
−	~~===Married woman's (religious) identity retains: HC===~~
−	~~[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a-woman-does-not-mortgage-herself-to-a-man-with-marriage-cji/article21290270.ece. Krishnadas Rajagopal, December 8, 2017: ''The Hindu'']~~
−
−
−	A woman does not mortgage herself to a man by marrying him and she retains her identity, including her religious identity, even after she exercises her right to marry outside her community under the Special Marriage Act, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra orally observed while heading a five-judge Constitution Bench.
−
−	~~The Special Marriage Act of 1954 is seen as a statutory alternative for couples who choose to retain their identity in an inter-religious marriage.~~
−
−	“Special Marriage Act confers in her the right of choice. Her choice is sacred. I ask myself a question: Who can take away the religious identity of a woman? The answer is only a woman can choose to curtail her own identity,” Chief Justice Misra said on the first day of hearing of a petition filed by a Parsi, who was barred by her community from offering prayers to her dead in the Tower of Silence for the sole reason that she married a Hindu under the Special Marriage Act.
−
−	~~Nobody could presume that a woman has changed her faith or religion just because she chose to change her name after marrying outside her community, the Chief Justice observed.~~
−
−	The Bench, also comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, is deciding the question whether a Parsi woman can keep her religious identity intact after choosing to marry someone from another faith under the 1954 Act.
−
−	The very fact that petitioner Goolrookh M. Gupta, married under the Special Marriage Act, did not choose to convert showed that she had intended to retain her religious identity as a Zorastrian. A decision in favour of the woman would uphold the fundamental right to religion, dignity and life and create a paradigm shift for women within the minority community.
−
−	~~(The court recently ruled in favour of Muslim women by striking down instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, and has now paved the way for a proposed legislation.)~~
−
−	~~Disagrees with widespread notion~~
−	~~The Bench, prima facie, disagreed with the widespread notion in common law that a woman’s religious identity merges with that of her husband after marriage.~~
−
−	Indicating that this amounted to discrimination on the ground of gender, Chief Justice Misra asked, “How can you [Parsi elders] distinguish between a man and woman singularly by a biological phenomenon… If a woman says she has not changed her religion, by what philosophy do you say that she cannot go to the Tower of Silence? No law debars a woman from retaining her religious identity.”
−
−	~~Justice Sikri observed, “If a woman’s identity is merged, then Special Marriage Act is not required, is it not.”~~
−
−	Chief Justice Misra said, “The Tower of Silence is not a mutt or a citadel of a cult. It is a place to offer prayers to the dead. Can such a right of a woman be guillotined? It is part of her constitutional identity.”
−
−	~~The court said it had to decide whether a religious principle had dominance over the constitutional identity of a Parsi woman.~~
−
−	Arguing for the petitioner, senior advocate Indira Jaising submitted that every custom, usage, customary and statutory laws had to stand the test of the Fundamental Rights principle. Article 372 (continuance of existing laws) of the Constitution was subject to Article 13, which mandated that laws should not violate the fundamental rights of an individual.
−
−	~~Petition against HC judgement~~
−	The petition is against the Gujarat High Court’s March 23, 2012 judgment, which held that Ms. Goolrokh Adi Contractor ceased to be a Parsi as she had married Mahipal Gupta, a Hindu, under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.
−
−	The Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust, which opposed Ms. Gupta’s plea, said the High Court decided the case after going through the affidavits of at least seven Parsi priests that said the religious tenets held that she ceased to be a Zorastrian upon her marriage to a Hindu and cannot be allowed to offer prayers in a Zorastrian place of worship.
−
−	Ms. Jaising argued that the fundamental right enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteed equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. It prohibited discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. “Anything arbitrary violates the rule of law,” she submitted.
−
−	Denying a woman respect and the right to observe her religion merely because she married outside her faith was violative of her fundamental right to religion enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution.
−
−	Ms. Jaising said there was a difference of opinion on the issue within the Parsi community itself. While some pockets allowed women who chose inter-religious wedlock into the Tower of Silence, others did not.
−
−	Ms. Jaising argued that the ‘doctrine of coverture’, which held that a woman lost her identity and legal right with marriage, was violative of her fundamental rights. ''The doctrine is not recognised by the Constitution.''
−
−	~~The court asked the Valsad Parsi Trust to inform by December 14 whether it would allow Ms. Goolrokh to attend the last rites of her parents.~~