Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Marriage Remains Irregular Under Personal Law Despite Special Marriage Act Registration: Madhya Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Court denies police protection for inter-religious couple, emphasizing personal law’s precedence over statutory law in validating marriages.

In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed by an inter-religious couple seeking police protection to marry under the Special Marriage Act. The bench, led by Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, held that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman remains irregular under personal laws, even if registered under the Special Marriage Act. The court further denied relief for non-registration of criminal cases against the male petitioner.

Petitioners Sarika Sen, a Hindu woman, and her partner, a Muslim man, sought police protection from the woman’s family and protection to appear before the Marriage Registration Officer. They intended to marry under the Special Marriage Act but faced opposition from the woman’s family, who also filed complaints alleging kidnapping and theft against the male petitioner. The couple requested the court to prevent any criminal case registration against the male petitioner for kidnapping.

Credibility of Personal Law: The court emphasized that under Muslim personal law, a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is considered irregular (fasid). “A Mahomedan male may contract a valid marriage not only with a Mahomedan woman but also with a Kitabia, that is, a Jewess or a Christian, but not with an idolatress or a fire-worshipper,” the court quoted from Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law.

Special Marriage Act vs. Personal Law: Justice Ahluwalia addressed the petitioners’ argument that the Special Marriage Act should override personal law. “Marriage under the Special Marriage Act does not legalize a marriage which is otherwise prohibited under personal law. The Special Marriage Act cannot override the fundamental tenets of personal law,” the court observed. The court cited Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, which mandates that the parties should not be within prohibited relationships as defined by their personal laws.

Witness Testimonies: The court noted that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence that the marriage, if registered, would adhere to personal law requirements. “The personal law supersedes statutory provisions in validating such marriages,” the court stated.

The judgment extensively discussed the nature of inter-religious marriages under Muslim law. “Marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman, even if registered under the Special Marriage Act, remains an irregular (fasid) marriage and does not create mutual inheritance rights,” the court clarified. This decision aligns with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mohammed Salim (D) Through LRs. V. Shamsudeen (D) Through LRs.

Justice Ahluwalia remarked, “Even if the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, the marriage would still be no more than an irregular (fasid) marriage under Muslim personal law.”

The High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition underscores the judiciary’s adherence to personal law in matters of inter-religious marriages. By affirming the irregular status of such marriages under Muslim law, despite registration under the Special Marriage Act, the judgment highlights the complex interplay between statutory and personal laws in India. This ruling is expected to influence future cases involving inter-religious marriages and the application of personal laws, reinforcing the legal framework governing such unions.

Date of Decision: 27th May 2024

Sarika Sen & Anr. V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Similar News