Skip to main content

Interfaith Marriage Between A Hindu and A Muslim not Valid Even if Registered under the Special Marriage Act

Image

An interfaith couple (Hindu-Muslim) approached the MP High Court at Jabalpur seeking protection from their family members as they wanted to get married under the Special Marriage Act of 1954, however, the families objected to the said marriage. The couple relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, wherein, it was directed that administration/police authorities shall ensure that no inter-caste or inter-faith couple, who have attained majority, is harassed by anyone or subjected to threats or acts of violence, and if such threats extended or harassment caused or act of violence committed, he/she should be strictly prosecuted according to law.     

The issues before the HC

Whether the marriage of a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl be a valid marriage or not?

To answer the issue, the HC strongly relied upon a judgment delivered by a division bench of the SC in Mohammed Salim (D) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through LRs. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5158/2013, wherein, the SC considered the validity of a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman in an appeal arising out of a partition suit and the SC held that such a marriage is neither a valid (sahih) nor a void (batil) marriage, but is merely an irregular (fasid) marriage. The SC in Md. Salim (Supra) placed heavy reliance on the Mulla’s Principles of Mahommedan Law (21st edition) that comments at page 345 “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. A marriage, however, with an idolatress or a fire­worshipper, is not void, but merely irregular”

The HC after analyzing the Mulla’s Principles of Mahommedan Law and the judgment of SC in Md. Salim (Supra) held that “14. As per Mahomedan law, the marriage of a Muslim boy with a girl who is an idolatress or a fire-worshipper, is not a valid marriage. Even if the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, the marriage would be no more a valid marriage and it would be an irregular (fasid) marriage”.


Whether the Special Marriage Act would override the personal law?

The HC held that under personal law, the performance of certain rituals is necessary for solemnization of marriage. However, if marriage is performed under the Special Marriage Act, then such marriage cannot be challenged on the ground of non-performance of such mandatory rituals. But marriage under Special Marriage Act would not legalise the marriage which otherwise is prohibited under personal law. Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act provides that if the parties are not within the prohibited relationship then only marriage can be performed.


The HC also noted that Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law (21st Edition) comments at page 259 that a mahomedan male may contract a valid marriage with a mahomedan, Kitabia(Jewess), or Christian woman, but not with an idolatress or a fire-worshipper. However, a mahomedan woman cannot contract a valid marriage except with a mahomedan. A marriage in contravention of the same is irregular, not void. 



WRIT PETITION No. 9589 of 2024
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All Cases of Sexual Intercourse Based on a False Promise of Marriage NOT Covered under Section 69 of the BNS

Recently, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Yash Dayal, a Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) player, under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for engaging in sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that, relying on Yash Dayal’s false promise of marriage, she consented to sexual intercourse. Notably, the FIR was not registered under Section 64 (rape) of the BNS. This raises the question: Are all cases of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage (vitiated consent) now exclusively covered under Section 69 of the BNS? Prior to the enactment of the BNS, sexual intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage was punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and classified as rape. This classification stemmed from Section 375 of the IPC, which defines rape as, inter alia, sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, and Section 90, which states that consent given under a misconceptio...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more