Image Source : AP Notice interval for inter-faith marriage now non-obligatory (representational picture)
In a landmark judgment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad excessive court docket has dominated that the 30 days’ discover to a wedding officer to register a marriage below the Special Marriage Act, 1954, must be non-obligatory fairly than necessary. The court docket mentioned that imposing a discover interval on the couple is tantamount to intruding on their basic proper to privateness and liberty.
“If the couple does not want to go for publication of the 30-day notice, the marriage officer has to solemnise their wedding forthwith,” mentioned Justice Vivek Chaudhary whereas disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a Hindu man married to a lady who was born Muslim however transformed earlier than the marriage.
Petitioner Abhishek Kumar Pandey alleged that his spouse Sufiya Sultana was being held captive by her father as a result of she had transformed and obtained married in response to Hindu rituals.
Justice Chaudhary primarily based his judgment on three key observations.
First, the regulation should hold evolving with time and societal change.
Second, it mustn’t violate anybody’s privateness, a basic proper underscored in a number of orders of the Supreme Court.
Lastly, when there isn’t a provision of a 30-day discover interval to get married below numerous private legal guidelines, why ought to this be necessary below the Special Marriage Act?
The court docket, nevertheless, clarified that the onus can be on the wedding officer to confirm the id, age and legitimate consent of the couple and their eligibility to marry below the related regulation.
“In case the marriage officer has any doubt, it shall be open for him to ask for appropriate details or proof as per the facts of the case,” the court docket mentioned.
Responding to an earlier directive, the daddy of Sufiya a.okay.a. Simran had produced his daughter in court docket.
During the course of the listening to, she and Abhishek instructed the court docket that they had been consenting adults who had married of their free will as a result of they wished to stay collectively.
Simran’s father thereafter gave his private consent to their marriage.
While the case was amicably closed, the court docket took discover of the truth that below the Special Marriage Act, it’s necessary to present 30 days’ discover for an interfaith couple to legalize their union.
Abhishek and his bride had pleaded earlier than the court docket that any such discover can be an invasion of their privateness and trigger pointless social strain and interference of their determination to marry. They additionally identified that many interfaith {couples} face the identical problem.
The petitioner’s counsel mentioned the circumstances had develop into much more tough for {couples} in Uttar Pradesh below the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, which treats conversion by means of marriage as ‘unlawful and punishable’.
He argued that within the gentle of modifications in society, amendments to the Special Marriage Act and numerous judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the privateness, liberty and freedom of selection of an individual, it’s crucial to revisit the availability for a 30-day discover interval and perceive whether or not that is to be handled as necessary or listing in nature.
Citing numerous orders of the Supreme Court and proposals of the Law Commission of India in 2008, the court docket concluded: “…the process of publication of discover and welcoming objections to the meant marriage in Act of 1954 thus must be such that will uphold the elemental rights and never violate the identical. No affordable goal is achieved by placing the availability of 30 days’ discover publication below the Special Marriage Act.
ALSO READ | Karnataka Brahmin marriage schemes: Rs 25,000 bond for marrying poor brides, Rs 3 lakh for poor clergymen
Latest India News
