INTERFAITH MARRIAGE - The Legal Quorum

Published On: 8th September, 2024

Authored By: Rania Rifaya F

Alliance University

ABSTRACT:

In modern India, interfaith weddings have become a prominent social phenomenon that reflects the variety of the nation as well as the complexity of social standards. The dynamics, difficulties, and ramifications of interfaith marriage in the Indian setting are examined in this essay. It starts by setting the historical and cultural background of these marriages in context, emphasizing the customary obstacles and changing perspectives on religious diversity. The paper investigates the variables impacting interfaith marriages, such as individual preference, societal acceptability, and legislative frameworks, based on empirical research and case studies.

It also explores the difficulties that couples have while traversing disparate religious backgrounds, including cultural shame, familial hostility, and legal ambiguity. A critical analysis of how religion shapes identities and relationships is presented, with a focus on how mixed-faith homes negotiate cultural practices and beliefs. The essay also explores both good improvements and persisting difficulties about the influence of interfaith weddings on wider social cohesiveness and religious tolerance in India.

Introduction:

Interfaith marriage, often known as “mixed marriage” or interreligious marriage, is the union of two people who practice different religions. Even though they are commonly recognised as civil partnerships, interfaith marriages may occasionally be recognised as religious marriages. This is dependent on the tenets of each of the two parties’ respective religions; some forbid interfaith unions, while others have differing thresholds for acceptance.

While some major faiths remain silent on the matter, others permit it under certain ceremonial and customary restrictions. Resistance to interfaith marriage may be a way for ethnoreligious communities to isolate themselves.

In an interfaith marriage, each partner often follows their own religion. The choice of religion to raise the children in might be one problem in these kinds of relationships.

The world admires India, our nation, for its rich customs and culture. We are referred to as “Unity in Diversity” because of our great diversity in language, cuisine, folk dance, attire, cultures, and customs. It possesses the world’s oldest history of high civilization and is a nation of peace and prosperity. The fact that our society is secular guarantees that individuals of all religious backgrounds, including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus, may coexist peacefully. It is claimed, rather properly, that Muslims and Hindus are two sides of the same exquisite coin, India. The bride’s attractiveness would gradually be diminished if one of her eyes were weak.

Humans are sociable animals by nature. It is society that comes before the individual. Indian wedding customs differ depending on the bride and groom’s personal preferences, the community, the religion, and the location. In India, the right to marry without restrictions based on race, nationality, or religion is granted to both men and women who have reached the age of majority. Under the 1954 Special Marriage Act, interfaith weddings are permitted in the Indian statute book.[1]

Special Marriage Act,1954:

Introduced into the Indian legal system in 1954, the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is regarded as one of the most important secular efforts of independent India. The Act was intended to be a piece of legislation that controlled weddings that religious traditions forbade from being solemnised. The Act applies to all Indian nationals, whether they live in India or overseas. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is not covered by this Act, notwithstanding the fact that individuals who reside there but have their principal place of residence in another state are eligible for these provisions.

A legal statute that establishes a distinct marriage category through registration. The fact that marriage doesn’t require religious acceptance or rejection is one of its unique qualities. Unlike traditional arranged weddings, which bring two families from the same caste or group together, the Act seeks to legalise marriages between individuals of different religions or castes. The Act’s Certificate of Registration is used as the standard form of marriage certification worldwide. The Preamble states that the Act allows, subject to certain restrictions, both the registration of special form marriages and divorces.

Key goals derived from Act’s Preamble:

A specific type of marriage,
documentation of certain marriages,
[2]

Applicability of the Special Marriage Act, 1954:

The 1954 Special Marriage Act covers all Indian states and Indian people residing abroad. This Act permits marriages between people of different religious backgrounds, including Muslims, Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, and Christians. The Act offers the opportunity to register weddings consummated in compliance with the couple’s own laws and covers not only interreligious, intercaste, or love marriages but also intra-faith unions. Personal laws, whether they be Hindu or Muslim, require that customs and ceremonies be followed in order to formally sanctify marriage. However, the Special Marriage Act of 1954 does not require any rituals or ceremonies to be performed; instead, the only prerequisite for marriage is the consent of two people.

It applies to all of India, with the exception of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as to Indian residents who reside in the areas covered by this Act and who are (in the State of Jammu and Kashmir). The legislation covers marriages between Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, and Hindus. As a result, there is a standard procedure for being married regardless of religion rather than a unique judicial marriage for people of different religions.

Requirements for Special Marriage Act,1954:

The Special Marriage Act does not mandate any of these since Indians view weddings as formal events involving pomp and circumstance and lavish festivities. The agreement of both parties to the marriage is the essential condition under this Act for a legal marriage. Caste, religion, race, or anything else cannot stand in the way of a couple’s union in this case; if both parties are willing to marry, that should be sufficient. The parties must register a notice of their desire to marry with the district’s Marriage Registrar in order to be married under this Act. The notice must specify that at least one of the parties must have lived together for at least 30 days previous to the date of filing. The marriage is therefore considered to be solemnized when thirty days have passed after the day that such notification was issued. However, if any family member of the parties disagrees to the marriage and the registrar determines that this is a legitimate reason for opposition, he may dissolve the union on these grounds. The parties must consent to the marriage in front of the marriage official and three witnesses for it to be deemed lawful. Every Indian should be aware of these fundamental conditions for a legally recognized marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

SHAFIN JAHAN v. ASOKAN K.M:

Instance, in which Hidaya, a Hindu woman, converted to Islam. Her father objected, claiming that she had been “indoctrinated” into accepting Islam and that she was also a victim of a campaign that sought to convert Hindu women to Islam out of fear for sending them abroad. She converted to Islam of her own free will, and the marriage was one of agreement. After considering the situation, we may say that this topic has nothing to do with religion. However, it also protects women’s right to freedom of choice, religion, and human rights.[3]

Shakti Vahini v Union of India:

The National Commission for Women designated the petitioner organization to do research on honour killing in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. After the study was completed, the petitioner organization filed a writ of mandamus with the SC directing the federal and state governments to take the necessary action to stop “Honour killing.”

After conducting research on honor killings, the petitioner organization discovered that these practices were common in several States across the nation and were seen as a just penalty for young couples who chose to marry outside of their caste. According to their findings, there are a number of reasons why honour killing occurs, such as having sex before marriage, becoming pregnant before marriage, declining an arranged marriage, marrying someone from a lower caste, being raped, etc.

As a result, the petitioner organization implored the SC to order the State and the Center to begin investigating the case right away.

Nonetheless, the respondents argued and submitted reports that the district levels effectively carry out the adoption of measures to prevent honor killing.

Honour killing is a social evil that impedes a society’s progress. Penal laws and judicial rulings, like in this instance, serve as a means of driving such ills out of society.[4]

Sufiya Sultan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors:

The argument contends that the Special Marriage Act’s [4]mandatory notice is an infringement on privacy, an attack on basic rights, and an overall hindrance to humankind’s and society’s ability to progress. This case, which began as a challenge to Safiya and her husband’s life, forces this nation to examine its changes, society, privacy, safety, and freedom.

By this ruling, the Allahabad High Court has also breathed new life into the legal system across the entire nation and served as a reminder that the law is a dynamic phenomenon that not only reflects society but also adapts to it, finding its home within it. It also serves as a reminder that a procedure that has been in place for nearly 150 years need not dictate how modern society should operate.[5]

Drawbacks of the Special Marriage Act, 1954:

Certain provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 of 1954 seem to cause problems and restrict a person’s freedom to marry a partner of their choosing, even though it allows couples to reject society’s customs and get married outside the artificial boundaries of caste, religion, and faith.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 of 1954 allows Indian residents and Indian nationals living abroad to marry outside of artificial borders of caste, religion, and community, but it also treats these marriages cautiously by imposing restrictions that do not apply to interfaith unions.

The pair had to wait 30 days after the notice was sent; there is no alternative for a speedy procedure for fast marriage. At the end of the thirty-day period, the union may be solemnized provided there have been no prior objections to such notice.

Furthermore, the Act requires prospective spouses to wait one month after the notice is published, which is thought to be the objection period. But it seems like too lengthy a wait for those who are continuously at danger from their families and communities. The Act allows family, caste, and society to harass those who want to exploit it for their own purposes. The legislation does not make it easier in practice, even if it permits two consenting adults to be married regardless of the faiths they profess, since it seems that these couples still want the community to consider their union as legitimate.

It is challenging to comprehend the differences between marriages performed under their respective laws and marriages performed under the Special Marriage Act of 1954. The purpose of this Act and the means by which its provisions are being used to achieve it don’t seem to be in line with each other.

Family members who are against the union may attempt to stop it through pressure because of the exposure at the local registration office. The lives of the candidates may be at danger in such a situation. Right-wing organizations have been known to oppose interfaith marriages while simultaneously monitoring marriage office notice boards and removing the parties’ personal information to exert pressure on them to drop the idea.

Consequently, it seems that the Act’s drawbacks outweigh its advantages. To achieve the goal of secularism and to support couples who want to marry under this Act by giving them laws that are reasonable, just, and fair—laws that do not give in to age or sociocultural oppression—some modifications to the Act are necessary in light of the issues that have been identified. Then and only then will this Act encourage marriages between individuals of all faiths and ethnicities, enabling the nation to realize its true secularism goal.

Conclusion:

In Indian society, the caste system is not a novel idea. History demonstrates that the widespread caste system contributed to the downfall of numerous civilizations. Its beginning might not be too far off, but its end was impossible to foretell. People would be entitled to marry the person of their choice regardless of caste, community, religion, or cultural taboos if a suitable version of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was passed.

The Special Marital Marriage is intended to protect the couple as much as possible in light of the community’s anger. Laws pertaining to legitimate marriages, voidable marriages, registration procedures, divorce grounds, child status, support, and remarriage have all been created under the Act. The plan was to develop a universal code that would eat away at the deeply embedded divides in society, much like termites do.
Society still encourages burdening and tormenting couples in spite of all the attempts.

The current imperative is to educate and involve people about how differences only serve to impede development and that interfaith marriage is only a matter of personal choice rather than a transgression.

References:

[1] Siddharth Anand, Inter-Faith Marriage: How Law Protects in India?, Law Bhoomi(July.04,2024,10:45PM), https://lawbhoomi.com/inter-faith-marriage-how-law-protects-in-india/#:~:text=In%20India%2C%20men%20and%20women%20who%20have%20attained,under%20the%20Special%20Marriage%20Act%20enacted%20in%201954.

[2] Rachit Garg, Special Marriage Act, 1954,iPleader(July.04,2024,11:00PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/special-marriage-act/

[3] SHAFIN JAHAN v. ASOKAN K.M, A.I.R 2018 SC 357 (India).

[4] Shakti Vahini v Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1601(India).

[5] Sufiya Sultan and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors, AIR 2021 All 56(India).