The Bombay High Court ruled that a Muslim man can register more than one marriage, as allowed by personal laws, in a case where a man sought to register his third marriage. The court emphasized that the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act does not override Muslim personal laws.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that a Muslim man is entitled to register more than one marriage as per his personal laws, which allow for multiple unions. This decision came after a division bench, comprising Justices B P Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan, directed the Thane Municipal Corporation to decide on an application filed by a Muslim man seeking to register his third marriage.
On October 15, the court addressed the man’s plea, filed in February last year, requesting a marriage certificate for his union with a woman from Algeria. The authorities had previously rejected the request, citing the man’s third marriage as the reason for their refusal.
Read Also: [Delhi Riots 2020 Case] Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused Shahrukh Pathan
The deputy marriage registration office denied the application based on their interpretation of the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriage Act, claiming that the law only allowed for the registration of a single marriage. According to their argument, multiple marriages could not be recognized under this Act.
However, the court was quick to clarify that this interpretation was “wholly misconceived.” It held that there was nothing within the framework of the Act that precluded a Muslim man from registering multiple marriages, as Islamic personal laws permit a man to have up to four wives at any given time.
“Under the personal laws for Muslims, they are entitled to have four wives at a time. Once this is the case, we are unable to accept the submission of the authorities that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, only one marriage can be registered, even in the case of a Muslim male,”
the court declared.
The bench emphasized that accepting the authorities’ position would imply that the state law overrides the personal laws of Muslims, which would not be legally sound.
“There is absolutely nothing in this Act to indicate that the personal laws of Muslims have been excluded,”
the court observed.
In a further critique of the authorities, the court pointed out the inconsistency in their actions, noting that the same office had previously registered the man’s second marriage. This contradiction was used to further bolster the court’s argument that there were no legal grounds to deny the registration of the third marriage.
Another issue raised by the authorities was the couple’s failure to provide certain documents required for the registration process. The court addressed this by directing the petitioners to submit the necessary documents within two weeks. Following the submission, the Thane civic authorities were instructed to provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order, either approving or refusing the marriage registration, within ten days.
Until the final decision, the court ordered that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner’s wife, whose passport expired earlier this year in May.
This ruling highlights the complex interaction between personal laws and state regulations, particularly in a diverse country like India where different communities follow distinct legal traditions. The Bombay High Court’s decision underscores the importance of honoring religious personal laws while also navigating state bureaucracies, ensuring that the rights of individuals under personal law are upheld.
The court’s ruling serves as a reminder that state laws cannot infringe on personal religious laws unless explicitly stated. In this case, the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act does not override or displace the personal laws of Muslims, allowing the man to seek registration of his third marriage.
As the matter proceeds, it will be important for the authorities to carefully follow both the court’s directions and the principles of justice laid down in the ruling. This case sets a precedent for similar cases where personal and state laws intersect, reaffirming the balance between individual rights and legal regulations in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
