Indus Valley Times

Madhya Pradesh, MAY 30 :  The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman was not valid under Muslim personal law. The court also dismissed a plea for police protection to register an inter-faith marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia said the marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman would be deemed as an “irregular” marriage under Muslim law even if they are married under the Special Marriage Act, according to a Bar and Bench report.

“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 no longer be a valid marriage, and it would be an irregular (fasid) marriage,” the high court said in its order on May 27.

The court made the observations while hearing a plea filed by a couple — a Muslim man and a Hindu woman. The woman’s family had opposed the inter-faith relationship and raised apprehensions that they would be shunned by society if the marriage went ahead.

The family claimed the woman had taken jewellery from their house before she left to marry her Muslim partner.

According to their counsel, the couple wanted to marry under the Special Marriage Act but the woman did not want to convert to another religion for the marriage. The man, on the other hand, too did not want to change his religion, the counsel added.

He said the couple should be given police protection while they appear before a marriage officer to get their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, Bar and Bench reported.

The counsel argued that inter-religious marriage would be valid under the Special Marriage Act and would override Muslim personal law.

The high court observed, “Marriage under the Special Marriage Act would not legalise marriage, which otherwise is prohibited under personal law. Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act provides that if the parties are not within a prohibited relationship, then only marriage can be performed.”

It also dismissed the couple’s plea that they were neither willing to change their respective religions nor having a live-in relationship, the Bar and Bench report said.

“It is not the case of petitioners that in case if marriage is not performed, they are still interested to live in a live-in relationship. It is also not the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 (Hindu woman) would accept the Muslim religion. Under these circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that no case is made out of warranting interference,” the court ruled.

-The India Today