Marriages Don’t Require Public Declaration: SC

Card image

Marriages Don’t Require Public Declaration: SC

By Admin |
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that not all marriages require a public declaration or solemnisation

Not every valid marriage requires a public declaration or solemnisation in a particular manner, the Supreme Court held on Monday, as it underlined the importance of autonomy in choosing life partners and approved a Tamil Nadu law that allowed “self-respect” marriages.

“Couples intending to marry may refrain from making a public declaration due to various reasons, such as familial opposition or fear for their safety. In such cases, enforcing a public declaration could put lives at risk and potentially result in forced separation,” noted a bench of justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar.

Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, as applicable to the state of Tamil Nadu through a state amendment in 1967, legally recognises Suyamariyathai and Seerthiruththa marriages (reformist or self-respect marriages) between any two Hindus, solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends, or other persons.

The state law maintains that the parties to the marriage can proclaim in whatever language they understand that one person accepts the other to be his or her wife or husband; the parties can also garland each other, place rings on each other’s fingers, or tie the thali to solemnise the union, as per the law.

By a judgment on May 5, the Madras high court had disapproved of marriages being conducted by advocates in their offices under Section 7-A of HMA, citing a 2014 judgment of the same high court. It added that the marriage performed by advocates in their office is not valid, unless it is registered under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. The court further said that the physical appearance of the parties to the marriage before the marriage registrar is essential.

The high court judgment came while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a man, who complained that his wife, with whom he was married in a ceremony before advocates, was forcibly taken away by her parents. The man filed an appeal against this order through advocates A Velan and Mrityunjay Pathak.

Setting aside the high court judgment, the top court on Monday banked on a 2001 judgment of the Supreme Court that held that the presence of a priest was not necessary for a valid marriage under Section 7-A and that a wedding conducted in the presence of relatives or friends or other persons by a simple ceremony was enough.

“The view expressed by the Madras high court in Balakrishnan Pandiyan Case (2014) is erroneous. It is premised on the assumption that each marriage requires a public solemnisation or declaration. Such a view is rather simplistic because often due to parental pressure, couples intending to enter into matrimony may not enter into it for the reason of such opposition, hold or give such public declaration, as doing so would imperil their lives and could very likely result to threat of bodily integrity, or forcible or coerced separation,” noted the bench.

It is not hard to visualise other pressures brought to two individuals who are otherwise adults and possess free will, said the court, adding the 2014 judgment of the Madras high court is not only narrowing the otherwise wide import of statute but is also violative of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court went on to cite a bundle of top court judgments that acknowledged the right to choose a life partner as a fundamental right under Article 21. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the 2017 Shafin Jahan-Hadiya case, emphasising that the personal liberty of a person must be fully given effect to.

It said that lawyers who are not acting in the capacity of the officer of the court, but in other capacities like that of a friend or relative or social activist can perform marriages under Section 7-A of HMA. “Advocates have many capacities. They are officers of the court. While acting as counsel/advocate, they should not undertake or volunteer to solemnise marriages. However, in their private capacity as friends as relatives, their roles as witnesses cannot be ruled out,” it stated.

In the present case, the bench recorded the wishes of the woman that she wanted to live with the petitioner and allowed the man’s plea.

Latest News Latest Supreme Court

Latest Posts

Card image

Supreme Court Issued contempt Notice to Patanjali Ayurved its MD for Misleading ads On...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday February came down heavily on Patanjali Ayurved for continuing to publish misleading advertisements regarding medicinal cures despite making an assurance to the Court earlier in November last year that no such statements would be...

Card image

AI Data Protection and Cyber crime Navigating Through the Nexus...

It was the dawn of the Digital Revolution in the latter half of th century that started to reshape the world But with the advent of AI data protection and cybersecurity have become paramount concerns for individuals businesses and governments...

Card image

S NDPS Act Not Applicable To Recovery From Bag Carried By A Person Supreme...

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the conditions for personal search as specified in Section of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are applicable only for the search of the physical body of the person and not for...

Card image

Children Of Invalid Marriages Have Right In Their Parents Share In Hindu Joint Family...

The Supreme Court on Friday September pronounced a judgment recognizing the rights of children born out of invalid marriages in their parents rsquo share in Hindu joint family property The Court held that children born out of void voidable marriages...

Card image

Understanding Section of the Indian Penal Code...

Section of the Indian Penal Code a colonial-era law criminalized unnatural offenses including consensual same-sex relationships However in a historic judgment on September the Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults marking a significant...

Card image

Central Civil Service Rules Retired Employee Can Be Appointed As Inquiry Authority In Disciplinary...

The Supreme Court recently held that the disciplinary authority under the Central Civil Service Rules is empowered to appoint a retired employee as an inquiry authority It is not necessary that the inquiry officer should be a public servant The...

EOS Chambers of Law

Speak With Our
Experts Today!

Get a Appointment
EOS Chambers of Law