The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected a plea for police protection for registering an interfaith marriage between a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl under the Special Marriage Act. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia highlighted that despite registration under the Act, such unions are deemed irregular under Mahomedan Law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BHOPAL: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a marriage between a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl is not considered valid under Mahomedan Law. This ruling came as the court dismissed a plea seeking police protection to register an inter-faith marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, who presided over the case, emphasized that according to Mahomedan Law, such a marriage is classified as irregular, or fasid, even if it is conducted under the Special Marriage Act.
He stated-
“According to Mahomedan law, the marriage of a Muslim boy with a girl who practices idolatry or fire-worship is considered invalid. Even if the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, it would still be deemed invalid and classified as an irregular (fasid) marriage.”
The case involved a petition filed by an inter-faith couple: a Hindu woman and a Muslim man. The woman’s family strongly opposed the relationship, fearing social ostracism if the marriage took place. They also accused the woman of taking jewelry from their home before eloping with her Muslim partner.
Despite the family’s objections, the couple was determined to marry under the Special Marriage Act. Their counsel argued that neither party intended to convert to the other’s religion. The woman planned to remain Hindu, and the man intended to continue practicing Islam post-marriage. Their counsel asserted that –
“The couple ought to receive police protection to facilitate their appearance before the Marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act for the purpose of registering their marriage.”
Justice Ahluwalia’s ruling highlights the complex interplay between personal laws and the secular provisions of the Special Marriage Act. His observation that such a union remains irregular under Mahomedan Law, despite registration under the secular statute, underscores the persistent influence of personal religious laws in matters of marriage.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stresses Proof of Custom in Hindu Customary Divorce Cases
The counsel for the petitioners argued that while their interfaith marriage might be prohibited under their respective personal laws, it would be valid under the Special Marriage Act. The Special Marriage Act, they asserted, should override personal law in such instances.
“The Special Marriage Act would take precedence over personal law,”
– he highlighted.
However, the Court held a contrasting view. It opined that even though a marriage under the Special Marriage Act cannot be challenged on the grounds of not performing religious rituals, it would still not be considered a legal marriage if it is prohibited under personal law.
The High Court referenced the Supreme Court case, Mohammed Salim (D) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through LRs. & Ors, which dealt with inheritance rights of children born from a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman. This precedent was crucial in the High Court’s conclusion regarding the current case, where the proposed marriage would be deemed irregular or a fasid marriage.
“A marriage under the Special Marriage Act cannot legalize a union that is otherwise prohibited by personal law. According to Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act, a marriage can only be performed if the parties are not within a prohibited relationship.”
-the Court stated.
“The petitioners did not assert that they would be willing to enter a live-in relationship if the marriage could not be performed. Additionally, the first petitioner was not willing to convert to Islam. Given these circumstances, the Court believes there is no justification for intervention,”
-the Court concluded.
ALSO READ: Law & Love| How are Interfaith Couples in India Affected by the ‘Love Jihad’ Law?
Advocate Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay represented the petitioners, advocating on behalf of the interfaith couple. The State was represented by government advocate KS Baghel, while advocate Rahul Mishra appeared for the woman’s father.