university press scholarship online oxford scholarship ......the solemnization of hindu marriages is...

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: UniversityGrants Commission; date: 08 June 2015

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

HinduLaw:BeyondTraditionandModernityWernerMenski

Printpublicationdate:2009PrintISBN-13:9780195699210PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:October2012DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195699210.001.0001

HinduMarriageLaw

MenskiWerner

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195699210.003.0008

AbstractandKeywords

ThischapterdiscussestheHindumarriagelaw.ItshowsthatneithertheAnglo-Hinduinterventions,northemodernistreformsofthe1950sinindependentIndia,broughtaboutanysubstantivechangeinHindumarriagelaw.ThechapterdiscussesthetraditionalHindulawofmarriage,whichisplacedwithintheproperconceptualframework.ItalsoattemptstodeconstructmodernistmisconceptionsofHindumarriage.

Keywords:Hindumarriagelaw,Anglo-Hinduinterventions,modernistreforms,traditionalHindulaw,marriage,conceptualframework,modernistmisconceptions

WhilemarriagelawhasbeenquiteprominentinIndianfamilylawcases,litigationhasalmostalwaysinvolvedotherlegalproblemsconcerningthestatusofthefemalespouse,herfinancialentitlements,orinheritancerights.ThelegalrecognitionofcustomaryHindumarriagearrangementsalsooftenrelatescloselytobigamy,maintenancelaw,succession,orjointfamilyproperty.Asaresult,thereismuchfuzzinessoverwhatisactuallymeant

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


by‘marriagelaw’.1Toclarifythisterm,itisnecessarytodistinguishtheprocessofmarriageitself,i.e.marriagesolemnizationandregistration,fromthesocialconsequencesofmarriage.Manyofthelatterarenotofcentralconcerntothepresentchapter,buthavegivenrisetocommentsaboutHindumarriagetraditionsandtheirlegalrelevance.

ThesolemnizationofHindumarriagesisfirstofallamatterofsocialconventionsandritualelaboration,involvingthedramatizationofsocialnormsandallkindsofrelatedbeliefs.2InthetraditionalHindusystemofmarriage,therewasnoroleforthestate,asmarriageremainedaprivateaffairwithinthesocialrealm.Inthetraditionalsystem,thesolemnperformanceofalongsequenceoftraditionalHindumarriageritualswasassumedtoevokementalawarenessofbeingmarried,bothforthespousesconcernedandforthosewhocelebratedthemarriagewiththemandwitnessedit(Derrett1963a).Hindusociety,andnotthestate,legitimizedandpublicly‘registered’allproperHindumarriages.OncetheBritishbecameinvolvedintheadministrationofHindulawandsoughtfixedrules,itbecameanissueofcentralimportanceforlawyershowsuchHindumarriagesaresolemnizedandlegallyvalidated.

ThepresentchaptershowsthatneithertheAnglo-Hinduinterventions,northemodernistreformsofthe1950sinindependentIndia,havebrought(p.274) aboutanysubstantivechangeinHindumarriagelaw.Eventoday,aHindumarriageinIndiadoesnotnormallyrequiretheinvolvementofthestate.Thus,behindamodernistsmokescreenofformallegalreformandcodification,thetraditionalHindulawremainsmoreorlessfullyinplace.3Agnes(2000:210)correctlystatesthat‘underthepresentstatute,aHinduneedneverapproachastatefunctionaryorareligiousinstitutioneitherforsolemnizationofhis/hermarriageorforitsdissolution’.

Here,then,isourfirstsubstantivecaseofpostmodernHindulawinpost-colonialIndia.AnalysingthispostmodernconditionofHindumarriagelawwithinahistoricalcontext,weneedtoaskwhetherthevirtuallycompleteblanketapprovalofancientHindupractices(whichnowofcourseappearintheircurrent,contemporaryavatar)constitutesahiddensurrendertoHindutraditions.Doesitsignifypostmodernrealism,namelythatmarriageissuchanintimatelysocialaffairthatitsformalregulationisbestlefttotherespectivesocieties?Orshouldweapplythe‘limitsoflaw’argumentasanexplanatorymodelforwhythemodernstatelawadmitssocomprehensivelythatitisunabletoregulatetherelevantnormativetraditions?

Itappearsthattherecouldnotbeamoreclear-cutcaseforthepreservationoftheethniccharacteristicsofHinducommunities,ortheidentityvalueofdifferentsocialgroups(Mansfield1993),asdiscussedinPartIofthisstudy.ThemodernstaterecognizesthatitseemsbesttoleavethesolemnizationandevenregistrationofHindumarriagestothejurisdictionofsociety,whileofferingjudicialforafordisputesettlementandjudicialsupervisionasasafeguard.ThisclearlyreflectsanacknowledgementthatwithintheHindusocioculturalframework—andnotprimarilythereforeonaccountofHindureligion—legalmechanismsexistwhichremainabletoexercisemeaningfulsocialcontrolatthelowestlevel,alsotoday.Inthisfieldofanalysis,therewasevidentlylittle

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


roomforpositivistinterventioninthefirstplace.Butsincethereformersdidnothesitatetointerfereinotherareasofthelaw,whydidtheynotinterveneinHindumarriagelawtoo?ThereasonliesinthepostmodernconditionofHindumarriagelaw,wheretodatethereremainsanuneasycoexistenceofreformistrhetoricandsocioculturalrealism.

TheTraditionalHinduLawofMarriageTheexistingliteratureonHindumarriagehasdevelopedintoacomplexcombinationofoddlymismatchedevidenceandcomments.ThepainstakingstudyofancientSanskriticmarriageritualsisnotamainstreamjobforlawyers,butamatterforSanskritists,historians,anthropologists,andresearchersofreligious(p.275) studies.TherearemanyseriousattemptsbySanskritiststomakesenseofthephenomenonoftraditionalHindumarriageanditsconsequencesinatraditionalcontext.4However,thesestudiestendtobecomeembroiledinritualdetailandthusdiscouragethelegalreaderwholooksforcertain,quickanswers.Writersworkingwithinamodernistconceptualframeworkofreference,andgenerallywithoutaddressingdetailsofHindumarriagelawandpractice,haveproducedabarrageofcriticismsoftheinstitutionofHindumarriage.5SomewhereinbetweenarethosewriterswhodescribethepatternsoftraditionalmarriagebutcannotresistglorifyingHindutradition,fantasizingaboutcertainaspects,orsimplygettingsidetrackedintootherrelatedissues.6

Asaresult,thereexistsasegregationofspecialistliteratures.TheremarkablydetailedliteratureonHindumarriageincludeshardlyanywritingbylegalscholars,whilearesearcheronHindumarriagewilldrawablankinlegaltextbooks,returningtoliteratureproducedbyscholarswhoarenotlawyers.Nevertheless,atleastnon-legalresearchershavebeenabletoelucidatetheconceptualframeworkofHindumarriageanditscentralsocialfunctionsforalllevelsofsociety.WithinaHinduframeworkofreference,itisagreedthateverysingleHindumarriagesolemnizationisamoreorlessconsciousattempttolinkthespousestothecosmicdimensionofHinduismthroughtheperformanceofcertainrituals.7Thesemaybeminimal,incertaincircumstances,8asHindumarriagesneednotbeelaborate,costlycelebrationsthatlastforseveraldays.9

(p.276) ConceptualCore:UnityinDiversityAfulldiscussionoftraditionalHindumarriagelawmustbeplacedwithintheappropriateconceptualframeworkandshouldthereforebeginfromthecentralpremisesoftheṛta/dharmacomplex(seech.3).RightfromtheearliestHinduliterarysourcesonwards,inṚgveda(RV)10.85andinAtharvaveda(AV)14,10wefindtwodetailedsequencesofHindumarriagerituals.BeginningfromsuchVedicfoundations,wehavemassiveevidenceofancientHindumarriagerituals,whichelaborateandrituallydramatizethecentralityofmarriageasacultural,social,andreligiousinstitutionamongHindus.Thedetailedcontextualinterpretationofsuchancientsourceshasremainedproblematic.MyPh.Dthesis(Menski1984)crackedsomeofthesophisticatedcodesoflanguageandpresentationthatdistinguishtheVedictextsasextremelyintelligentandcomplexrepresentationsofhumanmarriagevis-à-vistheHinduuniverse.FromthisVedicperspective,aHindumarriageisseenasthemicrocosmicequivalentofthemacrocosmictogethernessoftheuniverse,assymbolizedinthedailycyclesofsunandmoon.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


ContrarytoassertionsbymanymodernHindus,theVedicpatternsofmarriagesolemnizationdidnotconstituteafixed,uniformlybindingmodelforeverycouple.Furthermore,myresearchconfirmsthattheritualelementofthesaptapadī,whichappearstohavebeengivensuchprominencelater,andevenappearsinSection7(2)oftheHMA1955,cannotsatisfactorilybetracedbacktotheVedicstageofmarriagesolemnization.11Instead,itappearsinfullfledgedformonlyinthedomesticritualsectionsoftheimportantclassicalsūtraliterature.ItthusbelongstotherealmofclassicalHindulawwithitsemphasisondharmaratherthanṛta.Italsofitsthereconceptually,ratherthanintheVedicmodel,asitfocusesprimarilyonthetwospousesthatarebeingjoinedinmatrimony,ratherthanthecosmiclinksrecreatedthroughtheirmarriage.Thefull-fledgedsaptapadīisaritualoffriendship(Menski1991b),asolemnpromiseof‘goingthroughthickandthintogether’.Itthusemphasizesthemicrocosmicsphereofdharmamorethananythingelse,ritualizingtheemergingclosebondbetweenthespouseswithinthatconceptualmould.

ThemultipletransitionswithinHindutraditionalpracticesarewellreflectedinthespecialistliterature.Pandey(1969:153)wrotethat‘[w]henreligiousconsciousnessdeveloped,marriagewasnotonlyasocialnecessitybutbecameareligiousdutyencumbentuponeveryindividual’.12Nair(1978:2)confirms(p.277) thatanorthodoxHindumustmarry,‘whetherhebeanidiot,impotentorimbecile,fortheproperdischargeofhissocio-culturalandreligiousduties’.13DuringtheclassicalperiodanditselaborationofdharmicdutiesforeveryHinduindividual,thecentralimportanceofmarriagewasfurtherreinforced.Nowitsupposedlybecametheonlysaṃskāraforwomen.14Withintheframeworkoftheashramatheoryanditssequenceofstagesoflife,itbecameamajorexpectationthateveryone,maleorfemale,shouldbemarried.15DetailedfieldworkconfirmsthatsuchnormsarealsostronglyreflectedincontemporaryIndiansociety.16

ThetopicoftraditionalHindumarriagesolemnizationwasinitselfanoceanofdiversebeliefs,rituals,andpractices.Thesemadesense,ifatall,onlytothosewhopractisedsuchcomplexritualdramatizationsofthetransitionofacouplefromonestageoflifetothenextwithinthevarṇāśramadharmamodelofHindustagesoflife.Astheancienttextstellusinclearterms,therewasvirtuallyunlimitedscopeforlocal,caste,andfamilycustomstobecombinedwiththese‘traditional’Hinduritualelements.Āśvalāyanagṛhyasūtra1.7.1–2(tr.Sharma1976)significantlybeginsthemarriagesectionofthetextwithacommentthatemphasizespluralityandtheoverridingimportanceofcustoms:

Now,manifoldindeedarethecustomsofdifferentareasandvillages,thoseoneshouldobserveatthemarriage.Onlywhatiscommon(toall),thatweshallstatehere.

Ithasevidentlybeenimpossible,fromthestart,tobringanyorderintothiscomplexpatternofunendingdiversity,despitetheunifyingconceptualcore.(p.278) ThisisexactlywhereapostmodernanalysisofHindumarriagelawneedstobegin,intheearlyVedictimes.Hindus,asweknow,havenotbeenworriedaboutthepossiblefissiparoustendenciesofsuchdiversityandplurality,sincevirtuallyfromthestart,Hinduismasa

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


religioustraditionacceptedavarietyofcoexistinginterpretationsofthisreligion,itsorigins,motivatingforces,concepts,andpurposes.NotmuchseemstohavechangedinthisscenarioofoverlappingconsensussincetheearliestVedictimes.ThroughoutthetraditionalHindulawperiods,aswesaw,thisrecognitionofdiversityismanifestinthetextsthemselves.Significantly,attemptstointroduceuniformingmodelshavebeenmadefromtimetotime,17andthelabelof‘Vedicmarriage’isbeingusedforallkindsofpurposes.18

TheSocio-legalStatusofMarriageasaSacrament

Withinthetraditionalframeworkofreference,thereisnodoubtthatthemostimportanttransitionalpointinaHindu’slifeismarriage.Theleadingstudiesconfirmmarriage(vivāha)asthemostimportantofalltheHindusaṃskārasorlife-cyclerituals.19Shastri(1990:25)notesthatitisdifficulttosaywhenmarriageasaninstitutioncameintoexistencebutitappearsthatVedicmarriagewasalreadyafullydevelopedsocialinstitution.Shastri(1990:26)arguesthatmarriagewasregardedasasacredreligiousunionbroughtaboutbydivinedispensation,butnotacontract.Themarriagesacramentunitedthepartiesinanindissolubleunion.Husbandandwifewereonequalfootingandprayedthattheirloveandfriendshipshouldbelasting,genuine,andindissoluble.ThissoundslikeglorifyingHinduideology,butisaparaphraseofcertainversesthatmightbeusedrituallyinconnectionwiththesaptapadī(seeMenski1991b).Nair(1978:1)describesHindumarriageincontrastwiththecontractualtribalmarriagesystem:

TheorthodoxHindumarriageisasanskaraorsacrament,thelastoftenenjoinedbythesacredscripturesofHindus…Thelegalityofamarriagedependeduponceremonies.TheconsentofthirdpersonswasasessentialtothevalidityofaHindumarriageaswerethereligiousceremonies.

Marriageisundoubtedlyofvitalinteresttosociety,sinceitisseenasthefoundationofthefamily.Fruzzetti(1990:108)emphasizesthenatureofHindumarriageasasacredunionandasthemostauspicioussaṃskāra,sayingthatthesacredconceptionofmarriageinIndiacanbetracedbacktotheageofthe(p.279) Vedas.Shealsoassertsthat‘Manuregardsmarriageasanindividualandsocialnecessity’(id.).OnHindulegaltraditiongenerally,Agnes(2000:11)takesatypicalfeministstartingpointthat,seemstodamageHinduwomenforever:

Itisgenerallybelievedthatthe‘pristine’Hindulawwasparticularlyharshtowardswomenanddeniedthemsexualandeconomicfreedom.Thesetwofreedoms,infact,arecoordinate.TheHindujointfamilystructurebasedonmalecoparcenary,wastheinstitutionthroughwhichsexualcontrolwaseffectedbydenyingwomentherighttoownproperty.Inthisrealmofpatriarchaldomination,womenweretreatedaschattelsanduponmarriagedominationoverthemwastransferredfromthefathertothehusbandwithintheconfinesofperpetualtutelage.Insupportofthispremise,itisemphasizedthatManu,thearchlawgiveroftheHindureligionstipulated:‘Awomanmustbedependentuponherfatherinchildhood,uponherhusbandinyouthanduponhersonsinoldage.Sheshouldneverbefree’.Thestrictsexualcontrolwasalsoeffectedthroughordeals.Sita’sordealbyfireisset

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


outasanexample.Itisalsobelievedthatthemodernityusheredinduringthecolonialruleandpost-independenceperiodhelpedtoloosenoutthisstrictsexualcontrolbygrantingwomentherightofdivorceandpropertyownership.

Agnes(2000:11)askswhether‘withinthesestrictdictates,theHindulawpermittedanyspacefornegotiatingwomen’srights’.Butshealsonotesthat‘[p]luralityoflawsandcustomsandnon-statelegalstructureweretheessentialcharacteristicsoftheancientIndiancommunities’(ibid.:12).Howthencanonemaintainthattherewereorarestrictnormsthatarebindingoneveryone?ItappearsthatsuchwritingonlyperpetuatesmoderniststereotypesaboutHindu‘tradition’anditsanti-womeneffects.Atthesametime,somewritersarenowbeginningtorecognizethatthetraditionalmethodsofHindumarriagesolemnizationcontinuetoperformausefulfunctiontoday.Whilethisisnotphrasedasapostmodernanalysis,somemodernistauthorsrealizenowthatinsistenceonformalregistrationofallmarriageswiththestate‘wouldadverselyaffecttherightsofwomenandchildren’(Agnes2000:170).

LegaltextbookshavenodifficultyreiteratingthecentralconceptofsacramentalHindumarriageorsaṃskāra,20butdonotoffermuchinsightintoHindumarriagesolemnization.FromaSanskritist’sperspective,Pandey(1969:153–233)discussedinelaboratedetailhowthetraditionalHinduunderstandingofritualsandsacramentsdeveloped.Pandey(1969:153)emphasizedthatmarriageisthemostimportantofalltheHindusacramentsandconfirmedtheassumptionthateveryHindumaleisexpectedtomarry,runahome,andcreateafamily.Pandey(1969:155)placesHindumarriagewithinasocioculturalframeworkofreference:

Marriagewasafamilyaffairratherthanapersonalone;indeedthegenerationofoffspringwasthesuprememotiveofeveryuniontotheendthataman’s(p.280)houseorfamilymightnotdieout.Thenreligiousmotiveswereequallyoperativeinassigningsuchagreatregardtomarriage.Worshipofancestorsandgodswasdependentonprogeny,whichcouldbeobtainedonlythroughmarriage.InlaterdevelopmentofHinduism,thelastideabecamemoreprominentthanthesocialandeconomicones.

ModernistwritingalsoemphasizesthejointfamilycontextoftraditionalHindumarriages,butclearlyseesitinalesspositivelight.M.Basu(2001:3)goesalittletoofarwhensheclaimsthat‘[t]hewesternconceptofthenuclearfamilyconsistingofonlyahusband,wifeandchildrenhadnotemergedthen’.Surelythatconceptwasknown,ifonlybecauseprematuredeathsanddisastersofallkindsconstantlybrokeupjointfamilies,whichwerenottheonlyknownformofsocialorganization.Basuportraysmarriageasasocialalliancebetweentwofamiliesandarguesthat‘[i]twasbelievedthatthewoman’ssoleaiminlifeoughttobetoensurethehappinessandwell-beingofherhusband’sfamily—herownhappinesswasofleastimportance’(id.).Thechiefobjectsofmarriage‘weredharmaorreligiousduty,praja,procreationandrati,sexualpleasure’(M.Basu2001:4).

TheleadingsociologistKapadia(1972:167)placedHindumarriageexplicitlywithinthewidercontextofdharma,andfounditobviousthat‘theHinduthinkersregardeddharma

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


asthefirstandthehighestaimofmarriageandprocreationasthesecondbest’.Kapadia(1972:168)alsoreflectedontheperformanceofHindumarriagerituals,butseemsrathertoostronglyinfluencedbythelawyers’dogmaticinsistenceoncertaincentralritualelementsofHindumarriage:

Therearecertainriteswhichmustbeperformedformarriagetobecomplete.Themainritesare:homa,orofferinginthesacredfire,pānigrahaṇa,ortakingthehandofthebride,andsaptapadī,thebrideandthebridegroomgoingsevenstepstogether.AlltheseritesareperformedbyaBrahmininthepresenceofthesacredfireandareaccompaniedbytheVedicmantras.Theyarenecessaryformarriagetobecomplete,becausewhentheyoranyofthemarenotproperlyperformed,themarriagemaybelegallyquestioned.Hindumarriageisasacrament.Itisconsideredsacredbecauseitissaidtobecompleteonlyontheperformanceofthesacredritesaccompaniedbythesacredformulae.21

Sharma(1993)discussesthemultidimensionalimportanceofmarriageinancientIndiaingreatdetail,emphasizingtheneedforamantoprogressinthestagesoflife(varṇāśramadharma).Sampath(1969:29)arguesthatmarriageleadstoadifferentstatusinthatitbringsnotonlyphysicalintimacybetweenthetwoindividuals,butalsoeffectsimportantchangesinthelegalandsocialstatusof(p.281) theparties.Sharma(1993:3–4)indicatesthatmarriagewasthecentreandrootoflifeanditsbasiswassexualpower,i.e.theprocreationofthenextgeneration.22Morespecifically,Sharma(1993:9)statesthat,‘[f]romthebiologicalpointofviewtheinstitutionofmarriagewasnecessaryforself-preservationandprocreationofchildren’.Kapadia(1972:168)emphasizedtheroleofmarriageasariteofpassagetooneofthemajorstagesofaHindu’slife,andplaceditfirmlywithinasocialcontext:

Marriagewasasocialdutytowardthefamilyandthecommunity,andtherewaslittleideaofindividualinterest.Thesocialbackgroundprovidedbytheauthoritarianjoint-family,andcastewithitsdominationinallspheresoflife,affordednoscopefortherecognitionofanypersonalfactor,individualinterestsoraspirations,intherelationsbetweenhusbandandwife(ibid.:169).

Again,thelanguageusedheresuggestsfixedpatternswithinapatriarchalsetting,whereasinsocialrealityallthesearrangementswouldhaveremainednegotiable.Similarly,Nair(1978:16)makestheoverstatedclaimthatpatrilocalresidenceis‘absolutelynecessaryamongHindusaftermarriage’.23Qureshi(1978:39)repeatstheusualideologicalhumbugoverHinduhusbandsasgodsandalsotakesatypicallyuncriticalviewofsagesaslawmakers.Thispassageisonlycitedheretoillustratescholarlylackofcare:

TheHindusagesincleartermsholdthatthehusbandis‘thelordandmasterofhiswife’;hemustbeadoredandobeyed,evenifdevoidofallvirtues.Hemustbeobeyedaslongashelivesandthewifeshouldremainfaithfultohismemoryevenafterhisdeath.HeshouldbeworshippedlikeGod,eventhoughheisamanofbadcharacter.

TherearemanyrepetitivecommentsintheliteratureaboutwhetherHindumarriages

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


arecontractualorsacramental.TheHinduconceptofmarriageasasacramentalunionimpliesseveralthings.Aboveall,themarriageisdeclaredtobe‘divine’innatureandnotamerehumancontractualunion.Onewouldimaginethatithaselementsofboth,butauthorshavebeenemphasizingoneconceptortheothertosuittheirotheragenda.24Sastri(1988:176)describesHinduconceptsofmarriageemphasizingthewiderdimensions:

(p.282) Theyviewmarriageasasacrament,asaholyactwhoserealmeaningandpurposearebeyondthekenofmaterialandmoralscience.Theyregarditasasubjectofinjunction,ofspirituallaworDharmastrictlysocalled,whichshouldbelearntfromtheShastra,fromtheVedaitselfwhichdealswithsuper-physicalandpurelyspiritualmatters.

Qureshi(1978:39)arguesthatmarriageunderancientHindulawwasnotacivilcontract.InthepatriarchalsocietyofṚgvedicHindus,itwasconsideredasacramentalunion,bindingnotonlyinthislife,buteveninthelifehereafter.25However,ithasalsobeenarguedthatHindumarriageisacontract.Qureshi(1978:40–1)states:

AmarriageundertheHindulawisasacredcovenant.InaHindumarriage,thebridegroomhastopromisethathewilllookafterhiswife.Ontheotherside,thebridealsopromisesthatshewillbefaithfultoherhusband.Intheapprovedformofmarriagetheessenceisthetransferofthegift(kanyadan)bytheguardian.

Doesthisamounttoacontractbetweentwomen,then,asrepresentativesoftwojointfamilies?TheirksomeconceptualizationofthebrideherselfasameregifthasledtoprotestsabouthowcallouslyHindutraditionallowswomentobetreatedasapieceofproperty,tobegivenandreceivedinmarriage.WhileM.Basu(2001:2)blamesMuslimsandotherraidersforthebadpositionofHinduwomen,otherwritersbecomedefensive.Sastri(1988:208)emphasizestheAryanideal:26

Marriage,withusaswithseveralotherpeoplesmoreorlesscivilised,isasacrament,aninstitutionhavingadeepspiritualsignificance,andwhosevaluecannotbejudgedfromitsusesandpurposeswhichourexternalsensesalonecangiveustounderstand.Thebreedingofprogenyandmeresatisfactionofthenaturalcravingforsexualcompanionshiparenottheonlyaimsofmarriedlifecherishedbyculturedpeoplesallovertheworld.Amongtheadvancedandculturedracesofpeople,marriedlifeisintendedtoserveotherandnoblerpurposesthanthese,howeveressentialandvaluabletheseareinthemselves.

Manyauthorsaddressspecificaspectsofmarriagearrangements.Mishra(1994:25–35)discussesthequalificationsofthebrideandgroom,whileKarve(1994:60)distinguishesmarriageandwidowremarriage,since‘[a]lloverIndiathewordsfor“marriage”arealwaysdifferentfromthewordsfor“widow-marriage”.Thesecondmarriageofawomanneedednoritualandvows.Itismerelyconsideredalivingtogetherofamanandwomanafterlettingafewfriendsandrelativesknowaboutit’.Agnes(2000:20)alsoshowsthatdifferencesintermsofsocialstrataandthestatusofthespouseswerehighlysignificant:

(p.283) Marriagesamongthevariouslowercasteswerelesssacramentalandmorecontractual.Theritualofsaptapadi(sevenstepsroundthesacrificialfire,

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


whichisessentiallyaBrahminicalritual)orkanyadandidnotprevailamongthesecommunities.Childmarriageswerenotthenorm.Thecontractualmarriageswerebasedonconsentofadultwomenandtheritualsandceremoniesreflectedthiselementofconsentandcontract.Theritualsofremarriageofwidowsanddivorceesvariedfromthoseofvirginbrides.

TheeightformsoftraditionalHindumarriagearecoveredingreatdetailbymanyauthors.27Pandey(1969:170–1)specificallydiscussestheroleofritualsinHindumarriages,arguingthatreligiousceremoniesareessentialtomakeaHindumarriagevalid(p.170)andthattheyareperformedforlegalisingthemarriage,legitimisingthechildren,andavoidingpublicscandal(p.171).Inhisview,‘[t]henuptialsweresupposedtoimpartsanctitytothemaritalrelation.Henceitwasthoughtnecessarythattheyshouldbeperformedineverycase’(id.).Shastri(1990:40)claimsfurtherthatthepresenceofthewifeisabsolutelynecessaryfortheserituals.AccordingtoPandey(1969:199),theseHindumarriageritualshavedevelopedfrominelaboratebeginnings:

Inthebeginningtheymusthavebeenverysimple.Awomanwasgiventoamanbytheconstitutedauthoritybywhichtheybecamewifeandhusband.Butasmarriagewasaveryimportantoccasioninthecommunity,manyrites,practicesandcustomsarose,whichwereregulatedbythecommunityitself.Incourseoftimethesocietybecamecomplexandmanylocalandchronologicaldifferencescameintoexistence.

AvarietyofculturalfestivitiessurroundedaHindumarriageaswell.Pandey(1969:200)brieflydiscussesthemajorVedicceremonies.Fruzzetti(1990:121)writesthat‘Hindumarriageasasacramentrequiressacredritualsoftwotypes,BrahmanicritualshandeddownfromVedictimes,andlocalritualsperformedbywomen,withouttheinvolvementofapriestandwithoutSanskritmantras’.Sheshowsthat‘[b]othtypesofritualareconcernedwiththesametheme:maleandfemaleunionthroughthecomplementaryrolesofthesexesinsecuringtheimmortalityofthemaleline’.Thisagainshowsthecriticalcontextofthejointfamily.Fruzzetti(1990:123)alsoemphasizeslife-cyclerituals:

Marriageisseenasajourneytoanewlocality,status,role,position,wayofconduct—anewsetofrelationships.Brideandgroomarerebornashusbandandwife…Theriteshighlighttheseveranceofamarriedwomanfromherfather’shouseandthetyingofawife(strī)toanewenvironmentinherinlaws’house.

Whilethisfocusesontheculturalconstructionofthecategoryof‘wife’,Pandey(1969:233)commentedontheexpectedsocialtransformationofthecouple:

(p.284) Thenuptialsintheirutterances,promises,hopesandfearssymbolizeagreatsocialtransitioninthelifeofthebrideandthebridegroom.Theyarenolongerirresponsibleyouthsdependingfortheirbreadandviewsontheirparents.Theseriousnessoflifedawnsuponthem…Thisinvolvesagreatcompromiseandmutualsacrifice…Marriageacquiresitstruemeaningandreachesperfectiononlywhentheconjugalrelationshipisbasedontherealizationthatmarriageisawillingsacrificeforthegoodofthepartner,thefamily,thesocietyandtheworld.

IntheirdiscussionofHindumarriageconcepts,BedwaandUllah(1992:67)notethatobservanceofshastricceremoniesorofcustomaryritesoftheparticularcommunity

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


bringsaboutavalidmarriage.They,too,commentonthediversityofcustoms,sothat‘itisnotpossibletostatewithcertaintywhatformalitiesarerequiredtobeobserved…Itisindeedaquestionoffacttobeascertainedfromthesocialcontextoftheparticularcommunity’(id.).Theselegalauthorsthenelaborateontherituals,highlightingthatthedharmaśāstras‘haveprescribedelaborateandcomplexceremonies’(id.).Throughagradualprocessofelaboration,Hindusocietyhasdevelopedaplethoraofceremonies.However,asBedwaandUllah(1992:67)assert:

…thereisawideagreementamongtheleadingworkswithregardtotheperformanceofcertainnecessaryceremoniessuchasKanyadan,Panigrahana,SaptapadiandLajhoma.Itisverydifficulttosaywithanydegreeofcertaintywhichoftheseceremoniesoccasionsthecreationofmatrimonialstatus.FromthelegalstandpointitistheceremonyofSaptapadiwhichbringsintoexistencethematrimonialstatus,foritalong[sic]putsthestampoffinalityonthetransaction.CoulditbethensaidthatamarriageisvalidevenifKanyadanandPanigrahanahavenottakenplacesinceSaptapadiisthedecisivefactorregardingthevalidityofamarriage?SuchasituationismostunlikelytoariseforSaptapadiistheculminatingceremony,theKanyadanandPanigrahanabeingthepreliminaryceremonies.ThispositionisstillcontinuingevenafterthepassingoftheHinduMarriageAct,1955.

HereweareenteringtherealmofcurrentlegaldebatesonHindumarriageinthelightofHindutraditions.TheabovequotedemonstrateshoweasilymodernlegalauthorsconflateandconfusetheVedicandshastricingredientsofthetraditionalritualplurality.Intheend,thereaderisleftconfused,asnoclearguidanceisgiven.

DeconstructingModernistMisconceptions

ManyoftheexistingwritingsdonotaddresstheritualorlegaldetailsurroundingHindumarriagesolemnizationandsimplychallengtheinstitutionasawhole.WesawearlierthatThomas(2000:14)takesatotallynegativeviewofmarriage,describingitasaformofsexualslavery:

Itisaninstitutionbymeansofwhichtheownershipofawomanistransferredfromherfatherorguardiantoherhusband.Whiletherightsofaparent(p.285) overhisdaughteris[sic]restrictedatleastbythetaboosofincest,thoseofahusbandoverhiswifewerecompleteandabsolute.Anabjectslavetoherowner,amarriedwomancouldnotpleadlackofvirtueinherhusbandasanexcusefordisloyalty,anymorethanabond-slavecouldwithregardtohisowner…Thesanctityofmatrimonyisthesanctityofsubtletyranny.Perhapstheancientshadgoodgroundsforsanctifyingtyranny….

Thomas(2000:15)continuesthisargumentbysayingthatinmodernconditions,thereoughttobesignificantchanges.Whilesanctifyingtyrannymayhavebeensuitedtoancientsociety,todayweknowbetterformsofgovernmentthanthosefoundedontyrannyand‘itill-behovesustoretainthesanctityofaninstitutionwhichhasitsrootsininiquity’.Whilethislookslikeacaseofthrowingoutthebabywiththebathwater,Thomas(2000:26–7)goesontoblamemarriageceremonies,inparticular,asgivingmentotally

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


disproportionatepowersandallowingthemtodowithwomenwhattheywant.Atp.27sheargues:

Alltheseundesirableaspectsofmaritalmoralityarebutoffshootsofitsessentialvice,whichistheabsolutepowerthemarriageceremonygivesamanoverawoman.Incertainrespectsthispowerismoredespoticthanthatenjoyedbypoliticaltyrants.Marriagegivesamanpowertocondemnaninnocentwomantoconfinementinacellhecallshishome.Itgiveshimpowertodisrobeawomanwheneverhewantstoandevenagainstherwill.Itgiveshimpowertodemandworkfromherwithoutremuneration.

WhilethisamountstoacallforabandoningHindumarriageritualsaltogether,itisnotexploredwhatwouldorshouldreplacethem.Towhatextentislegalrecognitionbythestate,throughasecularceremonyornoceremonywhatsoever,goingtocircumventtheandrocentricityofsociety?Instead,Thomas(2000:28–9)getscarriedawayintocomparinga‘good’Hinduwifetoadogwhoanticipatesthemaster’swill:‘Andawomanknows,muchbetterthanadog,thatherdailybread,herhappiness,andherhonourdependsuponthecapriceofherhusbandandshetakesinfinitepaintoseethatshegiveshimnocauseforcomplaint’.Thisauthorthereforeconcludesthat‘[o]urmarriagemoralitycanbestbedescribedasaviciouscircleinwhichhusbandandwifechaseeachotherintodisastrousruin’(p.36).Thisishardlyconstructivescholarshiponmarriagelaw.

Suchnegativeconceptionsofmarriageappeartooriginateindeepermodernist(mis)constructionsoftraditionalHindumarriage.Toalargeextentthesehavedevelopedasaresultofthehegemonyofmodernist,positivisticassumptionsabout‘law’,whichdistortourunderstandingofthelegalstatusandroleofmarriageinHindusociety.Nair(1978:11)showshowtheknowledgeofIndianscholarsaboutHindumarriageceremonieshasbeeninfluencedbythemodernlaw,ratherthantraditionalSanskriticscholarship:

TheorthodoxHinduweddingisaceremonialmarriageanditissolemnisedinaccordancewithcustomaryritesandceremoniesoftheparties.Its(p.286)essentialvaliditydependsupon(1)invocationbeforethesacredfireand(2)Saptapadi,wheneverthesetwoformedtheessentialrites.MarriageiscompletedonlywhentheseventhstepistakenifSaptapadiisobserved;tillthenitisimperfectandrevocable.Consummationisnotnecessarytomakeamarriagecompleteandbinding.

ThisisalmostaparaphraseofSection7oftheHMA1955,carefullyphrasedtoavoidpitfalls.Asimilarpassage,butfullofmistakes,isfoundinM.Basu(2001:22),totheeffectthatgenerallyspeaking,‘aHindumarriageissolemnizedwiththecustomaryritesandceremoniespractisedbyboththefamiliesinvolved’.28Basuthencontinuestoemphasizethekeyroleofthesaptapadī,butmakesanothercriticalmistakewhenshewrites,atp.22,that‘[o]neofthemostimportantHindumarriageritualsissaptapadi,i.e.sevenstepstakentogetherbythebrideandthebridegroomaroundthesacredfire.Itisonlyaftertheseventhstepofsaptapadiistaken,thatthemarriageceremonyisconsideredcomplete’.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


WhilethisalsoattemptstobeaparaphraseofSection7(2)oftheHMA,theActitselfdoesnotsayorexplicitlyassumethatthesevenstepshavetobetakenaroundthesacredfire,butactuallyusesthewords‘beforethesacredfire’.SinceBasu’sbookisoneofthemostrecentpiecesofwritingonHindumarriagelaw,somewarningaboutthecurrentstateofscholarshipinthisfieldmustbegiven,foreventheplainlegalinformationisnotaccuratelypresented.

Unfortunately,thesituationisalsounsatisfactorywhenitcomestolegaltextbooks.Derrett(1970:xiv)hadarguedthatthelawofmarriagewascentraltolegalregulationandneededtobecarefullystudiedinitsownright.Hewarnedthatdespitethefocusonproperty,thehighlysensitivetopicofmatrimonialstatusmustbetreatedwithacertaindegreeofdiscrimination,isolatedpartlyfromothertopics.Derretthimself(1970:287–301)discussedvariousaspectsofHindumarriageindetail.However,whenweturntoIndianauthorsonthissubject,welocatemorecasesofdeliberateblindness,oratleastagooddealofobfuscation.AleadingauthoronHindulaw,ParasDiwan(1979:78)wroteatthebeginningofachapteronceremoniesofmarriagethat‘[p]erformanceofcertainshastricceremoniesisstillnecessaryforavalidHindumarriage.TheceremonieshavebeenlaiddowninminutedetailsintheGrihyaSutras’.Thenfollowsaratherlong,haphazardsummaryofsomeHinduweddingritualsandotherdetails,untilDiwan(1979:79)comestothesaptapadī:

Thencomesthefourthandthemostimportantandindispensableceremony:thesaptpadi.Nearthevivaha-mandapthebridegroomleadsthebrideforsevenstepsinthenorth-easterndirectionwhilerecitingcertainhymns.Thisisfollowedbyanaddressbythebridegroomtothebride.Wateristhenpouredonthehandsofthecoupleandcertainprayersarerecited.Uponthecompletionoftheprayer,thebridegroomjoinshandswiththe(p.287) brideandsaystoher,“Givethyhearttomyreligiousduties,maythymindfollowmine.Bethouconsentienttomyspeech.MayBrihaspatiunitetheeuntome”.Onthecompletionoftheseventhstepthemarriagebecomesfinalandirrevocable.

Thisidiosyncraticdescriptionandsummaryofthelawconveyswhatasaptapadīritualmightconsistof,butremainsconfusing.Evidently,theauthorcombinedhisownknowledgeandobservationof(Punjabi)Hindumarriageritualswithelementstakenfromrelevantspecialistliterature.Buthavingdeclaredthesaptapadīindispensable,thisparticulardiscussionthenconcludesbystatingthatmostofwhathasbeendescribedwouldnotbeperformedinaHinduweddingtoday.Infact‘[t]heperformanceofalltheaboveceremoniesisalsonotnecessaryforthevalidityofthemarriage’(Diwan1979:80).Whatthenisnecessary?Afewparagraphslater,theauthorreiterates,havinghadabrieflookatSection7oftheHMA:

Thus,theshastricceremoniesandritesarestillnecessary.Thesecanbedispensedwithonlyifoneofthepartiestothemarriagecanestablishacustomaryceremonyinsubstitutionoftheshastricceremony…SaptpadiisabsolutelynecessaryforallHindus.Whethertheotherceremoniesarealsonecessaryforthevalidityofmarriageisnotclear(id.).

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


Thisconfusingdiscussioncontinuesforanotherfewpages.Althoughthisparticulartextbookhasbeenre-publishedmanytimes,29therelevantpassagesarestillnotadequatelymodifiedandthereaders,mainlylegalpractitioners,arenotgivenclearandunambiguousguidance.Acynicmightthinkoftheprofessionalhabitoflawyerstoavoidclaritytoprotecttheirowninterests.ItisdoubtfulthatProfessorDiwansoughttoupholdHindutraditionassuch,sincehearguedvigorouslyelsewhereforitsabolitionandformodernizing,secularizingreforms.30

Fewlegaltextbooksavoidsuchmischief,whichcouldbeseenasdeliberateabuseofHindumarriagetraditions(Menski2001,Chapter1).However,theapplicationofapresumptionofvalidityofmarriageinaccordancewiththeHinduconceptofsaṃskārahasbeenfoundusefultoupholdthelegalvalidityofHindumarriagesandthefinancialclaimsofmarriedwomen.Forexample,Desai(1993:100–1)states:

Thereisofcourseastrongpresumptioninfavourofthevalidityofamarriageiffromthetimeofsuchmarriagethepartiesarerecognisedbythepeopleconcernedasmanandwifeandsuchpresumptionappliesalsotodetermine(p.288) thequestionwhethertheformalrequisitesofavalidmarriageceremonyweresatisfied.

Inconclusion,itmustbeadmittedthatourknowledgeofthecomplexfieldoftraditionalHindumarriagelawhasremainedpatchyandratherinadequate.Itisevidentthatthishasworkedtothepotentialdetrimentofwomenandchildreninamale-dominatedlegalenvironment,asstereotypesruletheroost,andthediversitieswithinsocialrealityareinadequatelycapturedbytheliterature.InviewofthemalebiasoftheentireHindusocioculturalsystem,itistemptingtosuggestthatreformisteffortsmightbedirectedattheregulationofHindumarriagesbythestate.However,itisevidentthatfortraditionalHindurulers,therewouldbenoperceivedneedforlegalintervention,sincetheareaofmarriagefallssquarelyundertheidealisticself-controlledordermodelofsadācāra.WithintherealmoftraditionalHindulaw,therefore,andalsounderMuslimruleinmedievalIndia,thisparticularareaofthelawremainedremotefromstateintervention.WeneedtodiscussnexttowhatextentthatsituationmayhavechangedundercolonialruleandunderthemodernIndianlegalsystem.

HinduMarriageLawUnderBritishRuleDerrett(1978a:10)reportsthatdharmaśāstrīshadthreatenedpeoplewithhelliftheyinterferedwiththesacredinstitutionofmarriage.PerhapstheBritishweregraduallybecomingawareofthis,buttheyhadtheirownreasonsfornotgettinginvolvedtoodeeplyinHindumarriagelaw.WesawinChapter4thatthegeneralreluctanceofthecolonialrulerstointerfereinthepersonallawspherebecameaprominentpattern.Somewritingonthisperiodsuggeststhatlegalinterventionbythecolonialpowerscouldbringnogoodanyway.Chandra(1998:4)arguesthattheinstitutionalsexismunderlyingtheandrocentricpatternsofVictorianEnglandwastransposed,throughthecolonialclaimtouniversality,ontothecolonialframeworkofBritishIndia.However,asChandra(1998:73)emphasizes,thereweremanylimitstotheprocessofcolonialintervention:

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


Reflectingtheparadoxicalstructureofthelargerimperialistexercise,acontradictionwasinherentintheBritishIndianjudicialpractice.Drivenbyanexpansionisturgeforunquestionedjurisdictionovertheaffairsoftheruled,itwas,simultaneously,obligedbytheforceofindigenouslawsandusagesintoaself-limitingminimalistconceptionofitsmediation.

Chandraclaimsthatafter1857,aslightshiftoccurred,buteventually‘theexperienceof1857hadintroducedanewstressinthestructuralambivalenceofthecolonialdispensation’(id.).PujariandKaushik(1994,III:283)blametheBritishformaintenanceofthepersonallawsystem,leadingtotheargumentthatthecolonialrulerscouldnotinvolvethemselvesinthecustomsandreligionsoftheirsubjects,whichthenresultedinfurtherstagnation.Takingthefamous(p.289) caseofRukhmabaiasamirrorofsuchtensions,31Chandra(1998:100)arguesthatafterthe1860s,thegradualexperienceofcodificationofthegenerallawemboldenedtheBritishtogofurther:

…massivecodificationofindigenouslawsandusageshadmeanwhileinducedasenseofknowledgeaboutthesubjectpeople,andanattendantsenseofpowerthatcoulddispensewiththeearlierhesitancyanduncertainty.TheBritishwouldnowbethesolearbitersinIndia,evensettlingcasesrelatingtothesubjects’privatelives.Theywouldassumethepowersofthekingandthefunctionsofthecaste…TheywouldnotonlyexercisejurisdictionoverconjugalrightsasdeterminedbyHindulaws,theywouldenforcethoserightsaccordingtotheirownmodesofprocedure.

Theprocessofjudicialintervention,thus,allowedtheBritishtobecomemorecloselyinvolvedwithquestionsofHindumarriageor,tobemoreprecise,itssocialconsequences.Didachildwifewhohadbeenmarriedtoanunsuitable,sickmanhavetoagreetoconsummationofhermarriage?InRukhmabai’scase,itappearedthatthecolonialsystemasserteditselfandintervenedinfavourofthehusband’straditionalrights.However,sincethenegativejudgmentagainstRukhmabaiwasnotenforced,thelawwasdeliberatelyleftwithoutimplementation.Chandra(1998:186)observesthatthecolonialofficials,enjoyingamonopolyofpower,alsoclaimedamonopolyofwisdom.Asbefore,‘[t]heyrationalizedanypositionthathelpedtoensuretheirpowerandsafety.Theyhaddevelopedcoldfeetonthequestionofalteringtheexistinglawforfearofpopulardiscontent’.Thus,therewasnoscopeforlarge-scaleinterventioninHindumarriagelaw,andtheBritishmerelydealtwithafewperipheralmatters,suchasremovingthelegalobstaclestowidowremarriage.32

Agnes(2000:46–52)examinesindetailthesubversionofwomen’srightsundertheBritishthroughtheindirectintroductionofEnglishconceptsandprinciples.Despitetheinitialpolicyofnon-interferenceinpersonallawmatters,sheobservesagradualprocessoftamperingwithestablishedlocalcustomsthroughvariousmeans,prominentlybylaw.Agnes(2000:46)confirmswhatwefoundinChapter4earlier:

Atthisstage,theprocessofevolvinglawsatthelocallevelthroughcommentaries,whichincorporatedwithinthemthelocalcustoms,wasarrested.TheBritishinterpretationsoftheancienttextsbecamebindingandmadethelawcertain,rigid

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


anduniform.ThisclearmarkerofmodernitywaswelcomedbythenewlyevolvingEnglish-educatedmiddleclassofBengalandprovidedtheBritishamoraljustificationforrulingIndiaas(p.290) harbingersofenlightenment.ThroughtheirinterventionstheHindusocietycouldriditselfofits‘barbarism’andenteraneraof‘civilization’.AnimageofthecruelandsuperstitiousnativeswhoneededChristiansalvationwasdeliberatelyconstructedbytheEvangelists.TheentryofHindusocialreformersintothecampaignagainstSatiattheadventof[the]nineteenthcenturystrengthenedtheprocessofinterventionsnotonlybyjudicialdecisionsbutalsobylegislativereforms.

Agnes(2000:46–7)listsfourlegalareasinwhichsignificantreformswerespearheaded,theSatiRegulationActof1829,33theHinduWidows’RemarriageActof1856,theAgeofConsentAct,1860andtheProhibitionofFemaleInfanticideActof1872.NoneoftheselegislativeinterventionsconcernsHindumarriagesolemnizationdirectly,butallarelinkedtomarriage-relatedarrangementsamongHindusandsoughttoremedyperceivedabusesinsociety.Agnes(2000:47)commentsthattheselaws,focusingon‘barbaric’nativecustoms,createtheimpressionthatinterferenceintherealmof‘personal’lawswasforthebenefitofIndianwomen:‘Thereisapresumptionthatbyincorporatingtheconceptsofmodernityintothenativejurisprudence,thestatusofwomeninIndiawasalleviated.Butrecentscholarshiphasquestionedthispremise’.Agnes(2000:52)goesfurtherinhercriticismofBritishlegalintervention,identifyingtheeffectsofbiasinfavourofhigh-casteHindunormsandmale-centredassumptions:

Theperiodbetween1850and1930witnessedtheeliminationofawiderangeofcustomswhichdivergedfromtheAnglo-Hindulawasthestandardofproofrequiredwasveryhigh.Unlessitcouldbeprovedthatthecustomwasancient,certain,obligatory,reasonableandnotagainstpublicpolicy,ithadaveryslimchanceofsurvival.Derrettcommentsthatinthismanner,theAnglo-HindulawwithitsDharmashastrabackgroundwasspreadmorewidelythanithadeverbeenbefore.TheonlycustomswhichweresavedfromthecrushingeffectsoftheBritishcourtswerethecustomsoftheagriculturalclassesinthePunjabandmatrilinealpracticesoftheMalabarregion.ThetendencyofboththeBritishcourtsandoftheurbanHindumiddleclasswastoignorethediversitiesandtoimposealegalHinduismuponthesecommunities.Contrarytopopularbelief,manyofthecustomswhichwerecrushedwerethoseinfavourofwomen.

However,whilevariousActswerepassedunderBritishrulearoundthe1920s,withsomeregulatingtheconsequencesofmarriageintermsofpropertyrelations,nodirectinterventioninHindumarriageassuchtookplace.FewfurtherreformsthenoccurredinthisfielduntilaftertheSecondWorldWar,duringwhich,asDerrett(1978a:7)observes,socialactivismbegantoflourish:

Ladiesofgoodfamily,andhigheducationalattainments,pressedhardforawholesalereformofthelawofmarriagesincethe1920satthelatest.As(p.291)happenedinbothWorldWarsinEngland,nationalemergenciesplacedwomen’sclaimstoequalityinanewlight.TheleadersofthemovementhadpersonalaccesstoIndianjuristsandpublicmen;whichmeantthatbeforeIndependence,indeedas

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


earlyas1941,theywereabletoinspirenumerousBillsbeforetheLegislativeCouncil.

KapurandCossman(1996:45)showthatsocialreformersincolonialIndiausedthewomen’squestionforavarietyofpurposes.Somelegalchangesweresoughtfromthecolonialadministrationtoimprovethestatusofwomen,tacklingspecificsocialproblemslikesatiandwidowremarriage,aswellaschildmarriage.ReformsofHindupersonallawwerefirstlookedatduringthe1920sasanaspectofachievingwomen’suplift(KapurandCossman1996:55).By1928thefocuswasbroadenedtoencompassfemaleinheritancerights.Agnes(2000:204)notesthatrightsforHinduwomeninthetraditionalperiodswerebasedontraditionalnotionsofequity,whileduringthecolonialera,theBritishinfluencehadbeennegative.Agnes(2000:205)explainsthat,

…theEnglishcommonlawcontainedseveralstringentanti-womenbiases.ThesebiasescreptintoIndiathroughtheAnglo-Saxonjurisprudenceandsubvertedthetraditionallegalsystemswhichprovidedwomenwithacertainmeasureofeconomicsecurity.Thetraditionalsystemswereremouldedintolinear,formalandstringentstructures,whichexercisedgreaterpatriarchalcontroloverwomenandtheirrighttoproperty.

Agnes(2000:206)arguesthat‘[c]onceptsofjustice,equityandgoodconsciencebecamethedirectchannelsofintroducingEnglishlaws,principlesandpuritanicalnotionsofmoralityintoIndia’.Agnes(2000:205–6)alsoclearlyrecognizesthattheancienttextsweredistortedinthisprocessofcolonialsuperimposition:

ThecolonialinterventionsalsofacilitatedtheconstructionofdistinctandmutuallyhostilereligiouscommunitiesofHindusandMuslims,tobegovernedbytheirrespectivepersonallawsalongthemodelofthecanonlaw.Thebasisofthelegalsystemweretheancientscripturestranslatedwithawesternmindset.Thesescriptureswerenevermeanttobeusedasrigidlegalprinciplesofanadversariallegalsystem.ThetranslatedtextsdrasticallychangedthenatureandcharacterofthecustomaryandscripturalHindulawandtheHinduwoman’srighttopropertysufferedaseveresetback.IntheprocessofstreamliningthepluralisticsocietyseveralcustomaryrightsofwomenwerecrushedastheycouldnotmeetthelegalrequirementsetbytheBritishcourtstoproveacustom.Ironically,inthisprocessthecharacterofthecommunitieswasfixedandthemutuallyexclusivecommunitiesofHindusandMuslimswereconstructedthroughlitigationoverpropertydisputes.

Thecolonialinterventioncouldnot,anddidnot,interfereintraditionalpatternsofHindumarriagesolemnization,whichremainedascomplexand(p.292) custom-dominatedasever.34Anglo-IndiancaselawupheldtheHinduconceptsofsaṃskāra.VenkatacharyuluvRangacharyulu(1891)ILR14Mad316,isacaseonthevalidityofachildmarriage,whichalsoconcernsHinduconceptsofmarriage.Theparentsofayoungbridewererestrainedfromgivingherinmarriagetosomeoneelseanditwasheldatp.318:

TherecanbenodoubtthataHindumarriageisareligiousceremony.Accordingtoallthetexts,itisasamskaramorsacrament,theonlyoneprescribedforawoman

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


andoneoftheprincipalreligiousritesprescribedforpurificationofthesoul.Itisbindingforlifebecausethemarriageritecompletedbysaptapadiorthewalkingofsevenstepsbeforetheconsecratedfirecreatesareligioustie,andareligioustiewhenoncecreated,cannotbeuntied.Itisnotamerecontractinwhichaconsentingmindisindispensable.Thepersonmarriedmaybeaminororevenofunsoundmind,andyet,ifthemarriageriteisdulysolemnized,thereisavalidmarriage.

Animpressionhasthusbeencreatedthat,inthisareaofthelaw,traditionalHindupractices,evenSanskriticscripturaltraditions,havebeenstrictlymaintainedandpreserved.Exaggeratedassumptionsaboutthefixednatureof‘tradition’inthiscontextabound.BedwaandUllah(1992:68)engageinmythmakingwhentheyclaimthat,eventhoughwedonotknowmuchaboutManuandothersages,

…evenafewdecadesback,theHindusweremainlyandscrupulouslyfollowingtheinjunctionsprescribedbythem.Therewereunbrokentraditionscontinuedfromtheearliesttimeuptothepresentperiod.ThiscontinuityofthetraditionspeaksavolumeabouttheefficacyandtheusefulnessofthesaidinjunctionswhichcouldnototherwisecommandsogreatareverenceandsofaithfulanobservancebytheentireHindusociety.Asamatteroffact,untilthepassingoftheHinduMarriageAct,1955,therewashardlyanymomentouschangeinthelawofHindumarriage.

Theauthorshereconflatecustomarytraditions,textualnormsandlegalrules,overstatingthecontinuityanduniformityoftraditions.Ontheotherhand,mostwritingpayslittleattentionto‘tradition’,commentsstraightontheneedformodernistlegalreforms,ordiscussestheeffectsofthelegalinterventionsbroughtaboutbytheHMAof1955,towhichwemustnowturn.

ModernistReformstoHinduMarriageLawAswesaw,ithasbeenastandardtechniqueinpost-colonialSouthAsiancountriestoreformthemajoritypersonallawfirstandtoignoretheminoritylaws.35(p.293) Theaim,itappears,wasmodernizationaswellasunification,intotalconceptualoppositiontotraditionallegalsystemswiththeiremphasisoncontextspecificityratherthanlegaluniformity.InIndia,thedebatesaboutHindumarriagelawanditsreformshavethereforebeentiedupwithuniformcivilcodedebatesandthepoliticssurroundingtheperceivedintransigenceoftheMuslimpersonallaw.

InmodernIndianlaw,Hindus,Buddhists,Jainas,andSikhswereeventuallytobegovernedbyoneuniformHindulaw,ostensiblyforthesakeofreducingdiversitieswithintheHindupersonallaw,andtopromotenationbuilding.36Inthisway,anartificialunityofHindulawhasbeencreatedtofosteranationalspirit.37Desai(1998:68)claimsthat‘[t]heconditionsandrequirementsofaceremonialHindumarriageareconsiderablysimplifiedandanytwoHindus,whichexpressionincludesnotmerelyHindusbyreligionbutBuddhists,JainsandSikhsaswell,cansolemnizetheceremonialmarriagerecognisedbytheAct’.38Whetherthishasbeensuccessful—inapurportedlyseculardemocracywhichclaimstovalueequidistancefromallreligions—mustbedoubted.SomeSikhs,in

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


particular,haveviolentlyobjectedtothislegalintervention,demandingamongotherthingsgreaterrecognitionoftheirownpersonallaw.39Eventoday,localandtribalcustomarylawscontinuetoplayamuchlargerroleintheIndianlegalsystemthanmostlawyersreadilyadmit.Customremainsevidentlyrelevantandisatopicdiscussedinallmajortextbooks.40

(p.294) ModernistAgendaandtheirProblemsLegalinterventioninmarriagelawbythepost-colonialIndianstatehasbeenjustifiedinclassiceurocentricmoderniststatements.Qureshi(1978:81)claimsthat‘[t]heroleofsocialengineeringiscompleteinthewestanditshouldbeappliedtoIndia,ifnecessary,inremodelledorrectifiedform’.Qureshi(1978:251–2)explicitlyjustifiessuchinterventioninmarriagelawthroughtheidealizedconceptofthewelfarestate:

Inancientdaystheceremonyofmarriagewasnecessarybecausethestatewasnotexpectedtoseeeveryaspectofhumanlife.Atthattimethemaintaskofthestatewastomaintainlawandorder.Thereasonofprescribingmarriageceremonieswastoimposeamoralbindingonthehusbandtogivesheltertohiswifeandchildren.Today,thestateisawelfarestate.Ithastomakelawsforeveryaspectofhumanlife.Therefore,ifamarriagehasbeenregisteredwiththeRegistrarofMarriages,thereshouldbenoneedofamarriageceremony.

Bystipulatingthata‘religious’marriageceremonymaynotbenecessary,thisauthorapparentlysuggestsasecularizingagenda,aratherradicalstepforaMuslimwriter.41Whilethepreciseextentofstateinvolvementremainsdebated,marriageasamajorbuildingblockofsocietyisnowperceivedtobeofrelevancealsotothestate.Earlier,Altekar(1978:368)hadclearlypleadedforreforms:

…evenorthodoxSmritiwriterslikeManuhaverecognisedthatatimemightcomewhentheirruleswouldbecomeobsolete,andhavethereforedeclaredthatifanyrulesframedbythemarefoundtobenotconducivetothewelfareofsociety,oragainstthespiritoftheage,theyshouldbeunhesitatinglyabrogatedormodified.Asamatteroffacttheythemselveshavedonesoinmanycases.

ModernistlegalauthorssuchasRanbirSingh(1991)claimthatthestateshouldexertevermorecontrolovermarriagelawandmustmakegreatereffortstocontrolthesocialaspectsofmarriage.Singh(1991:39)arguesinparticularthatcompulsoryregistrationofmarriage‘iscertainly[the]needofthehourtoprovethevalidityofaHindumarriage’andclaimsthat‘compulsoryregistrationholdsakeytotheeradicationofsocialmaladieswhichare[a]by-productofdefectivemarriagelaws’(ibid.:40).Assertingthatallkindsofbenefitswillaccruetowomen,SinghevidentlyreliesonargumentsbyProfessorCretneyfromEngland,totheeffectthatregistrationisessentialtoascertainaperson’sstatus.ButisthisequallyrelevantinIndia?Singh(1991:40)claimsthat‘dogmaticinsistenceontheobservanceofessentialceremoniesforthesolemnisationofaHindumarriagehasprovidedafertilegroundforthenurtureofmanysocialevils’.AsdiscussedfurtherinChapter10later,oneofthemodernistkey(p.295) arguments,asinSingh’sessay,isthatformalregistrationofmarriageswouldreducepolygamy.42However,suchclaims

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


remainhighlydoubtful.Qureshi(1978:251)insistsontheimportanceofmarriageregistration,whilerecognizingthatcustomaryformsofmarriagecannotjustbelegislatedaway:

…itisclearthatinallthereligions,someceremonyhasbeenprescribedforthevalidityofamarriage.Theperformanceoftheceremonyisareligiousmatteranditshouldnotbeabandoned.IfeelthatitshouldbeprovidedintheUniformCivilCodethatnoceremonyisessentialforperformingthemarriage.Everymemberofthesocietyshouldbeallowedtoperformthemarriageinaccordancewithhisconscience.Buttheregistrationofthatmarriagewithin30daysaftertheperformanceoftheceremony,shouldbemademandatory.Ifamarriagehasnotbeenregistered,itshouldnotbetreatedasvalid.However,thecourtsshouldbegiventhediscretiontoacceptanyreasonableexplanationforfailingtogetthemarriageregistered.

Qureshi(1978:251)alsoarguesthattheintentionofthepartiestoamarriageisthemostimportantpointformatrimonialrelations.Ifthespousesarewillingtoliveashusbandandwife,thestateshouldgivefullprotectiontothem.43Moreimportantforthisauthor,though,appearstobetheuniformcivilcodeissue,leadingtoasurrogatedebatewhichisnotreallyconcernedaboutmarriagesolemnization.Qureshi(1978:290)writes:

TherewasatimeinthehistoryofhumancivilizationwhenthedutyoftheStatewasonlymaintenanceoflawandorder,protectionoflife,libertyandthepropertyofthesubjects.Thisconceptofstatehascompletelychanged.Todaywearelivinginawelfarestatewhichhastoguaranteeprosperityandwellbeingofallthepeople.TheIndianConstitution,therefore,containsthechaptersofFundamentalRightsaswellasDirectivePrinciplesofStatePolicy.ThechapterofDirectivePrinciplesofStatePolicyimposesonthestateadutytotakepositiveactionsincertaindirectionsinordertopromotethewelfareofthepeopleandachieveeconomicindependence.Onewayofachievingeconomicindependenceisbyhavinguniformmatrimoniallaws.

Whileonemustquestionthelogicofsucharguments,Qureshi(1978:292)isevenmoreexplicitthattheuniformcivilcodeis‘intendedtogiveequalfacilityoflawtoallsectionsofourpeople’,stipulatingthatallIndiancitizensshouldbegovernedbythesamesetoflaws,since‘[t]herecannotordinarilybeanyjustificationforhavingonesetoflawsforonesectionofthesocietyandadifferentonefortheother’(id.).Thesimplisticargumentpromotedhere,which(p.296) totallyignorestheculturalinputintolegalnorms,istotheeffectthatauniformmatrimoniallawforallIndianswouldconstituteonesteptowardssocialjustice(ibid.:293).Thus,asQureshi(1978:342)arguesfurther,uniformmarriagelawsshouldgiveequalstatustobothspousesirrespectiveofcaste,creed,andreligion,since‘[i]tisthedutyofagoodGovernmenttointroduceagoodsystemoflaws,whichiscertain,simple,lucidanduniformwithoutgivingrisetodisputesorfosteringdisharmonyamongthepeoplethataregovernedbyit’(id.).Qureshi(1978:343)suggestsfinallythatParliamentshouldintroducelawskeepinginviewtherecenttrendsinprivateinternationallawtoestablishuniformityinmarriagelawsallovertheworld.44Thischainofargumentsclearlyarisesfrommodernistthinkingandwishesforagloballystandardized

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


legalsystem,divorcedfromthesocioculturalneedsoflocalpeopleoutsidetheAnglo-Americanrealm.

Discussingthepracticalmechanicsofmarriageregistration,Singh(1991:51)rightlysuggeststhatthisshouldbelocatedatthevillagelevel:‘Itisnotanaïvesuggestionbecausewhenbirthsanddeathscanberegisteredandaproperrecordcanbekeptforthat,whyshouldmarriagesnotbecompulsorilyregistered,too?’However,contrarytoSingh’sclaims,afull-scalesystemofregistrationforallbirthsanddeathssimplydoesnotexistinIndia(Sarkar1993:1875).Anysystemofregistrationwouldthereforecreateitsownproblemsofunreliability.

PujariandKaushik(1994,III:304)uncriticallyrepeattheassertionthatregistrationofmarriageswouldserveasaneffectivecheckonallkindsofsocialproblemsrelatedtomarriage.45Singh(1989:65)notesthatSection8oftheHMA1955enablesthestategovernmentstoprovideforcompulsoryregistrationofmarriagesbutthatfailuretoregisteramarriagewillnotaffectitsvalidity.Singh(1989:65–6)notesthatregistrationiscompulsoryamongParsisandChristiansandforallmarriagesperformedundertheSMA1954,althoughthatActhashadverylittlesocialimpact,asSingh(1989:66)confirms,arguingthat:‘Theultimateobjectistorecogniseregistrationasthesoleandconclusiveproofofmarriage,irrespectiveofthereligiousritesunderwhichitwassolemnised’.ThisauthoralsoasksthatIndiashouldsignorratifytheUNConventiononConsenttoMarriage,MinimumAgeforMarriage,andRegistrationofMarriageandproclaimsthatitisnecessarytointroduceasystemofcompulsoryregistrationforallmarriages(id.).PujariandKaushik(1994,III:282–3)notethatindependentIndiareliedheavilyonlegislationinitsefforttopromotetotalgenderequality.

(p.297) Stressontheremovalofdiscriminationandspecialprotectivelegislationforwomenwasnecessaryinpost-colonialIndia,becausetheBritishpolicyinthefieldoffamilylawhadsuchacripplingeffectonwomen(Chandra1998).Callsformodernistreformssuggestcapacityonthepartofthemodernstatetocontrolthesphereofmarriagesolemnization.However,ithasremainedacentralcharacteristicofHindulawthattherouteofentryintomarriageforHindus,withveryfewexceptions,goesthroughadherenceto‘traditional’customsandrituals.Inpractice,thesocialprocessofgettingmarriedhasvigorouslyresistedcentralstatecontrol.46

LimitsofStateLawandtheModernistDiscourse

Indeed,carefulscrutinyofthestate’slaw-makingdevicestoreformHindumarriagelawwouldsuggestthatmodernIndianlawinthisfieldsimplyunderwritesHindutradition.Thisiscontrastedbyprevailingmodernistassertionsinthelegalliteraturewhichcontinuetoclaimotherwise.EventodaythelegalcriterionforvalidityofaHindumarriageinIndiaisnotwhetheritwasregisteredinsomeformbythestate,butwhetheritwasperformedinaccordancewithtraditionalritualsandceremonies.Thus,onemustindeedwonderifanyreformshavebeenachievedinthisfieldatall.TherelevantlawinthisfieldisfoundinSection7oftheHMAof1955,whichreadsasfollows:

S.7-CeremoniesforaHindumarriage.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


1. (1)AHindumarriagemaybesolemnizedinaccordancewiththecustomaryritesandceremoniesofeitherpartythereto.

2. (2)Wheresuchritesandceremoniesincludethesaptapadi(thatis,thetakingofsevenstepsbythebridegroomandthebridejointlybeforethesacredfire),themarriagebecomescompleteandbindingwhentheseventhstepistaken.

Thismeansthatsubsection(1)hasentirelypreservedtheoldcustomarypositionunderHindulaw,wherebysolemnizationofamarriageisamatterfortherespectivefamiliesconcernedandistobegovernedbyfamily,community,andcastecustom.Aswesaw,thesevarybylocality,casteandfamily,andfromcasetocase,sothatcustomneedstobeinterpretedflexiblyandunduerigidityistobeavoided.

WhenthelegalvalidityofaHindumarriageisatissuebeforeacourt,questionsneedtoberaisedaboutwhatiscustomaryinaparticularkindofmarriage.GiventheflexibleframeworkofSection7(1)oftheHMAascitedabove,severalimportantquestionsmayariseaboutwhenanactionfallsunder(p.298) ‘custom’.Onthedefinitionofcustoms,Section3oftheHMA1955istheguidingprovision:

S.3-Definitions.

InthisAct,unlessthecontextotherwiserequires-

(a)theexpressions“custom”and“usage”signifyanyrulewhich,havingbeencontinuouslyanduniformlyobservedforalongtime,hasobtainedtheforceoflawamongHindusinanylocalarea,tribe,community,grouporfamily;

Providedthattheruleiscertainandnotunreasonableoropposedtopublicpolicy;and

Providedfurtherthatinthecaseofaruleapplicableonlytoafamilyithasnotbeendiscontinuedbythefamily;

OurtraditionalunderstandingofcustominrelationtothenatureofaHindumarriagesuggeststhatlargenumbersofpeoplewouldfollowexactlythesamepatternsofsolemnization,andagroupofpeoplewouldhavedonesoaslongastheycouldremember.However,asindicatedinanearliersectiononthetraditionalHindulawofmarriage,thereissimplynosuchthingasauniformtraditionalHindumarriageceremonythatcouldbehelduptoallHindusasthebindingmodel.AnybodywhodoubtsthisshouldturntoPandey(1969:199),whoclearlyemphasizedthecomplexityoflocalanddifferentscripturaltraditions.Morespecifically,whilediscussingtheVedicmarriagerituals,Pandey(1969:200)admittedthat‘wecannotbecertainastoinwhatordertheyoccurred’.47

Thus,aHindumarriageiscustomaryinthesensethatitconstitutesaspeciallyconstructedsequenceofritualstepsthathaveelementsofcustomarytraditionsinthem.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


InessencesuchHindumarriageritualsareadhocsituationspecificreconstructionsofculturalbricksthatarebeingrecycledastheritualsofmarriagesolemnizationproceed.48Viewedinthismanner,everysingleHindumarriagebecomesanentityinitsownright,operativewithintheconceptualframeworkof‘custom’,yetnotrigidlydefinedineveryminutepointofritualdetail.Takingthispluralisticandflexibleviewclasheswiththeformal,morerestrictiveunderstandingsofthelegalconceptof‘custom’,whicharetoorigidandinflexible.

After1955,furtherreformstotheHMAweremadeintheHinduMarriage(Amendment)Act,1956(Act3of1956),theHinduMarriage(Amendment)Act,1964(Act44of1964),andtheMarriageLaws(Amendment)Act,1976(Act68of1976).Noneofthesebroughtanysignificantchangestothelawon(p.299) solemnizationofHindumarriages.Therefore,muchofthelegalliteratureconveysamisleadingpicturewhenitsuggeststhatthemodernHindulawonthesubjectofmarriagehasbeendrasticallychanged.ThiswasneitherthecaseundertheHMA1955itself,norunderitssubsequentamendments.Reddy(1999:13)claimstherewereradicalchangesinthemarriagelawsofHindus,butdoesnotactuallymentionmarriagesolemnizationwhenhewritesthat‘[s]ection5hastheeffectofabolishingtheprohibitiononwidowremarriage,childmarriageandpolygamyinonestroke.Thewomanstandsonthesamefootingasthemaninallthesematters’.49Variar(1985:21)summarizesthepresentpositionintypicaldogmaticlawyers’fashion:

…finallyin1955,theParliamenthasenactedalawcodifyingandamendingthelawofmarriageamongtheHindus.ThereforeatpresenttheentirelawisembodiedintheHinduMarriageActof1955,whichsupersedesthepreviouslawcontainedintheDharmaśastraworks,commentariesanddigests,customs,statutes,anddecisionsofcourts,subjecttotheexceptionsrelatingtocertainaspectsexpresslyrecognisedintheAct.

Thisverygeneralposition,carefullyworded,prevailsataformallevel,whichassumesthesupersessionofHindutradition.ButthisgeneralstatementisclearlywrongasfarasSection7oftheHMAisconcerned.Desai(1998:650–70)claimsthatsubstantialchangeswereintroducedin1955,buttotallyoverstatesthisinpositivistfashion:

TheActabrogatesalltherulesofthelawofmarriagepreviouslyapplicabletoHindus,whetherbyvirtueofanytextorruleofHindulaworanycustomorusagehavingtheforceoflaw,inrespectofallmattersdealtwithintheAct.Italsosupersedesanyotherlaw,containedinanyCentralorStatelegislationinforceimmediatelybeforeitcameintooperationinsofarassuchlegislationisinconsistentwiththeprovisionscontainedinit.

Jain(1983:xxii)notescorrectlythattheHMAdoesnotprescribeanyparticularformofmarriage,butneverthelessclaimsthattheActintroducedradicalchanges,broughtaboutuniformityintheHindulawofmarriage,andabrogatedcustom.Otherauthorsappeartoagree.ForexampleReddy(1999:12)summarizesthepositionaftertheHMA:

TheHinduMarriageAct,1955wasthefirstofthecodifiedHindulaws.TheActdoesnotspecificallyprovideforanyformofmarriage.Itmadethemarriagemoreconsensualandsecularthanreligious.Itnomoreconsidersthemarriageasa

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


‘Samskara’asconsideredbyDharmaSastras.Themarriageissolemnizedasperthecustomaryceremoniesprevalentinthecommunitytowhichthebrideandbridegroombelong.

(p.300) Infact,asisobviousfromSection7oftheHMAascitedabove,thepost-colonialHindulawonmarriagehassimplyrestatedandconfirmedthedominanceofcustomarylaw,butthisrulenowappearsincodifiedform.BedwaandUllah(1992:68)alsoseemtomakeexaggeratedclaimsabouttheeffectsofmodernistlegalintervention:

TheimmediateeffectoftheHinduMarriageAct,1955,accordingtoconservativeview,hasbeenanabruptseverancefromtheancienttraditionandacceptanceofcertainprinciplesandnations[sic]hithertogenerallyquitealientothegeniusofthepeople.ButatthesametimetheActremoveduncertaintiesinthematterofcertainaspectsofmarriagewhichwereformerlyunderthetraditionallaw…indoubtfulstate.

Butwhathasbeenthisabruptseverancewhenitcomestothelawofmarriage?Again,theexamplesdiscussedconcernformalabolitionofpolygamyandanumberofotherissues,butnotsolemnizationofmarriage.BedwaandUllah(1992:80)write:

Section7(1)oftheActprovidesthataHindumarriageistobesolemnisedbythecustomaryritesandceremoniesoftheparties.Nopreferenceisgiventoanypartywhoseceremoniesaretobeperformed.Ithasbeenlefttotheoptionoftheparties.Astheritesandceremoniestobeobservedarecustomary,theymustpossessthequalitieswhicharenecessaryforthevalidityofacustomasdefinedu/s3(a)whichrequiresthatformaturingintocustomaruleshouldhavebeenobservedforalongtime,continuouslyanduniformly.

Diwan(1978:60)alsosuggestedthattheconceptofHindumarriagehasundergoneatremendouschangeundertheAct,assertingthat‘[t]hedharmicinstitutionofmarriage,inwhichmarriagewasmeanttobeanindissolublereligiousunionofmanandwoman,issoughttobetransformedintoaunionofconvenience’.Diwan(1978:75)claimedthatbyrepudiatingtheinviolableandsacramentalcharacteroftheHindumarriage,theHMA‘treatsmarriageasaconditionalsocio-legalagreementbetweenadultandequalpartieswiththeirfreeconsenttoestablishahomeashusbandandwife’.Qureshi(1978:41)alsoarguesthattheHMAintroducedacontractualelementintoHindumarriage,whichisnowaunionofonemanandonewomantotheexclusionofothers.M.Basu(2001:36)observesthat‘[t]hetraditionalconceptofmarriageisnowgreatlychangedandHindumarriagetodayhasassumedmoreorlessthenatureofacontractforthemutualbenefitofthepartiesconcerned,dulyaidedbydifferentlegalprovisionsandreforms’,althoughsherecognizesthattherearelimitstowhatlawcanachieve.Singh(1993:371)evenclaimsthat‘thesacramentalcharacterofHindumarriagehasevaporatedasaresultofinductionoftheremedyofdivorcebythestatutorylawofHindumarriage’.

Thus,despitetheirinflatedassertionsoftheeffectiveuniformingreformsofstatelaw-making,suchmodernistauthorsareconcedingtheirdissatisfactionwiththeextentofreformstoHindumarriagelaw,whichwasclearlynot(p.301) totallyabolishedorreformed.Diwan(1978:62)complainedthattheHMAwasmerely‘paperlegislationin

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


severalrespects’andcriticizedthatit‘stillallowscustomarymarriagesandmarriagesrepletewithreligiousceremonies’.Diwan(1978:63)arguedthatalltheseloopholesneededtobeplugged,whiletryingtopronounceontheidealofmodernmarriage:

Thequestionthatoccurstoeveryoneis,whatistheidealformofmarriagethatsuitsthemodernconditions?Marriageceremonyinthepresentsocietymustbeasimpleone,secularorcivil,withoutanypompandshow,anditshouldcombineallthesanctityandsolemnityoftheshastricmarriageandthesecularcontentandmodernityofmarriagebychoice,inwhichthepartiestothemarriageactivelyparticipatewithoutundueinterferencefromelders,whomaybe,atthemost,consultedbeforemarriage.

Diwan(1978:68)wasthereforecriticalofretainingtraditionalHindumarriagesunderthelaw,claimingthat‘theretentionandrecognitionofshastricmarriagesunderthepresentlawofmarriageisaretrogradestep’.ArguingthatthedevelopmentofasecularoutlookshouldbecherishedbythemodernHindulawofmarriage,Diwan(1978:68)suggestedthatthelaw‘shouldbeeitheramendedsuitablysoastobreakthereligiousshellofthemarriageorberemovedcompletelyfromthestatutebook’.

SuchcommentsandsuggestionsreflectthehegemonyofmodernistdiscourseonmodernHindumarriagelaw,continuingtoinflateandextolthepowerandvirtuesofstatelaw-making.Yetdespitetheirlanguageofuniformity,secularism,andvalue-freemodernity,theseareactuallyculture-specificmodernistphrasesinspiredbylegaldevelopmentsinEngland,whereduringthe1970simportantdivorcelawreformswerebeingdebatedinsuchterms.Clearly,amorerealisticperspectiveisneededtocritiquesuchsuggestions.Forexample,howwouldIndiaremovemarriagelawfromthestatutebook?TheHMA1955wasindeedanoddcompromiseoftheoldandthenew,whichinitiallyleftsomelitigantsandjudgesconfused.Interestingly,BedwaandUllah(1992:80–1)observe:

Itissubmittedthatevenafterthecodification,thecourtsarenotstillcertainastowhicharetheessentialceremoniesofmarriage,exceptsayingthat“Saptapadi”isanobligatoryceremony.ItisdenyingthefactthatamongtheHindusthereisnoclarityabouttheessential“sastraicceremonies”.DifferentclassesandcastesofHindusandHindusindifferentpartsofthecountryperformdifferentceremoniesandeventhepriestwhoofficiatesatHindumarriageisunabletoidentifywhataretheessentialceremonies,asdistinctfromthenon-essential.Theresultisthatwhatevertheceremoniesrightorwrongthepriestperforms,areessentialceremoniesforthatmarriage.

Itisthereforeargued,atp.81that‘itisverydoubtfulwhethernonperformanceofessentialceremonieswouldnowhaveafataleffectonmarriage’.Theseauthorsalsorecognizethatlongcohabitationashusbandandwifewouldraiseapresumptionofvalidmarriage.BedwaandUllah(1992:81)thereforealmoststumbleacrossthefindingthat‘thelawrelatingtoaHindu(p.302) marriageisthesameafterthepassageoftheHinduMarriageActasitwasbeforeitspassage’.Thisisindeedthecorrectposition,provided

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


thatthecourtsarereadytoapplyapresumptionofmarriageasliberallyastheyshould.YetthishascontinuedtobeconstantlycontestedinthecontextofcreatingamodernlegalorderintheIndiancourts.

ContestingModernityintheCourts

ClosercriticalscrutinyofSection3oftheHMAwouldappeartosuggestthatitactuallysupportssuchaflexiblestance.Thesectiondoesnotspeakof‘ancient’customstransmittedandfollowed‘sincetimeimmemorial’,butexplicitlymentionsobservance‘foralongtime’.ProblemshavearisenwhencommunitieshavemoreorlessradicallychangedtheircustomsandhaveintroducednewelementsthatseemtoclashwiththeprovisionsofSection3oftheHMA.Insuchcases,criticalquestionsaroseabouthowlongis‘alongtime’.50Thelegalrequirementismanifestlynotthatsuchcustomshavetobe‘ancient’.Nevertheless,Indiancourtshaveinmanycasesusedpreciselythatword,orhaveevendemandedevidenceofcustoms‘sincetimeimmemorial’,aphrasecomingfromAnglo-Hindulaw.Thisremarkableimprecisioninstatutoryinterpretationshouldnothavegoneunnoticed,buttheHindulawonthissubjectremainsconfusedtoday.

Onefamousearlycaseexemplifyingtheimpositionofsuchmodernist,positivisticconceptionsinHindumarriagelawconcernsthepre-1955caseoftheTamilself-respecters,whorefusedtoinvolveBrahminsandcomplexBrahmanicalritualsintheirmarriageceremoniesanddevisedinsteadnew,simpler,andcheapercustomaryformsofmarriagesolemnization,whichwerefollowedbyalargenumberofpeople.InDeivainiAchivChitambaramChettiarAIR1954Mad657,itwasheldbytheMadrasHC,inconflictwithlocalsocialnorms,thatasimplemarriagesolemnizationwithoutfullritualsdidnotleadtoalegallyvalidHindumarriage.Inotherwords,afull-fledgedshastricmarriageceremonywasheldtobeessentialforlegalvalidity.Denyingthescopeforthedevelopmentofnewcustomsandoperatinginfavourofhigh-casteshastricnorms,thisdecisioncreatedagravesocialproblem,foritlegallyinvalidatedthousandsofHindumarriagesandconfusedpeopleabouttheirpropertyrightsandstandinginsociety.Remarkably,ittookthelegislatureofTamilNaduagoodthirteenyearstocomeroundtoresolvingthisconflict.Nevertheless,theresultinglegislativeamendmentconstitutesasignificantvictoryforcustomarylaw.51

(p.303) LatercasesonSection7oftheHMA,startingfromthewell-knownprecedentofBhauraoShankarAIR1965SC1564,havetendedtousetheconceptof‘ancient’customanddemandshastricrituals,especiallythesaptapadī.Theinsistenceoncustomhavingtobetraced‘fromtimeimmemorial’isdefinitelyarelicofBritishlegaleducation,sinceintraditionalHindulawtherewasnosuchrequirement.RabindraNathDuttavTheStateAIR1969Cal55takesrathertoostrictaviewofcustomsinHindumarriages,virtuallyrulingoutthatanychangesmaybeintroduced.Inthiscase,Hindumarriageistreatedasasacramentanditwasheld,atp.58:

TheHinduMarriageActdoesnotlaydownanyspecialorparticularkindorformofceremoniestobecompulsorilyobservedinallHindumarriages.Infact,theformofmarriage,prescribedbytheSastras,issubjecttomodificationsbycustomor

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


usage.Buttheexpression‘CustomaryCeremonies’cannotbetakentomeanthat‘SastricCeremonies’havebeentotallyignored.Theexpression‘CustomaryRitesandCeremonies.naturallymeanssuchsastricceremonies,whichthecasteorcommunitytowhichthepartybelongsiscustomarilyfollowing.CustomaryritesandceremoniestobeacceptedmustbeshownthatsuchcustomasanessenceofmarriageceremonyhadbeenfolloweddefinitelyfromancienttimesandthatthemembersoftheCaste,CommunityorSub-Castehadrecognisedsuchceremoniesasobligatory.Onceitisprovedbyevidencewhatceremonieshadbeenfollowedascustomaryrites,itisnolongerlefttothewilloftheCaste,CommunityorSub-Castetoalterthemastheessenceofcustomisthatonaccountofitsdefinitenessithadbeenrecognisedandadoptedbythecasteorcommunitywithcertaintyandwithoutanyvariation.

Thisisclearlyastrictlegalisticapproachthatisnotgoingtobefeasibleinpractice.GiventhattheinherentcustomaryflexibilityofHindumarriageritualscausedlegalproblemsinsomecases,somewritersbegantocriticizethestricturesofmodernist,positivisticmodels.Anand(1992:184),forexample,whilenotconsciouslycouchinghisanalysisinthistheoreticalframework,observesthattheofficialstrictnessofproofofmarriageshouldberelaxedinviewofsocialchangesandnewpatternsofrituals:

Meanwhileceremoniestoamarriagebesimplifiedsoastoincludetheintentionofthepartiesmanifestedbyexchangeofgarlandsorringsorthelikesinthepresenceofrelativesandfriends.Suchsimpleformsberecognisedasvalidmarriagestatutorily.Afterall,manyritualsandceremoniesinconnectionwithmarriagearealreadynotinvogueanymore.PanditjiisgenerallybribedtoskipmantrasattheSaptapadiandtohurrythewholeshow.Shouldnotlawkeeppacewithsociety?Shouldthelawnotrecognisethoseceremonieswhichsocietyhasevolvedtograntapprovaltoamarriage?

Thisinterestingsuggestionmeansineffectthatthelawshouldrecognizewhatsocietydoes,ratherthanseekingtodictatetopeoplefromabove.Isthisaconsciousswitchawayfromthecolonialmodeofthesocialreformers,oreven(p.304) anearlyglimpseoftheemergenceofapostmoderncondition?OtherdebatesthatreflectuponthecontestationofmodernistconceptionswithinthecourtsrelatetotheissueofprohibitedrelationshipsforHinduspousesinSection5oftheHMA.Herethelegalneedwastoprotectcertainlocalcustoms,especiallyfromsouthIndia.InviewofthesizeofIndia,andthevarietyofcustomsaboutprohibiteddegrees,auniformlegalregulationcouldsimplynotbeachieved.Similarly,clauses(iv)and(v)ofSection5oftheHMAmakeanexceptioninfavourofacustomorusagegoverningeachofthepartiestothemarriagewhenitcomestoprohibiteddegrees.SomereportedcasesfromtheSouthareveryinstructiveonthissubject.InBalusamivBalakrishnaAIR1957Mad97,amarriagebetweenagrandfatherandhisdaughter’sdaughtercameupforconsideration.TheCourtheldthismarriagetobevoid.InMeenakshisundaramPillaivP.NammalwarAIR1970Mad402,amanhadmarriedhissister’sdaughterafterhisfirstmarriageremainedwithoutoffspring.Itwasheld,atp.405:

Thesaidmarriagehavingtakenplace,aftersuchmarriageshavebeenprohibited

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


bylaw,itwouldbeinvalidandthepositionofhiswifewhoisalsohisnieceisnobetterthanthatofaconcubine.Buthetookhissister’sdaughterinmarriageashissecondwife,ashehadnoissuesbyhisfirstwife.SuchamarriagewasnotprohibitedbySastras,orHinduLaw,asadministeredpriortotheprohibitionofsuchmarriagesbystatutes.

ThiswasacaseabouttheHindulawofcharitableendowment,andthemarriageissuewasonlyaminorpoint.Itissignificantthatnobodyaskedwhethermaybe,inthiscommunity,marryinganiecewaswithinthescopeofcustomarylaws.Itiscertainlynottheuniversallyacceptedposition,asBedwaandUllah(1992:72)seemtosuggest,thatallsuchmarriagesarenecessarilyvoid.Infacttheseauthorsthemselvesprovidefurthercasereferences(ibid.:72–3)totheeffectthatawoman’smarriagewithhermaternalunclemaybeconsidereddesirableinsomecommunities,butnotinothers.52BedwaandUllah(1992:73)addatouchoflegalrealismwhentheysuggestthatnotmuchharmisdoneifpeoplegoonsolemnizingsuchmarriagessince,‘ifthefamiliesarewelleducatedandfinanciallysound,itwouldmakenodifferencetothemiftheymarrybybreakingtheprovisionsofthestatutorylaws.Theiractionwouldnotbringanysocialstigmainthesocietytothemandtheirchildren’.

Predictably,animportantaspectofwritingonHindumarriageconcernsthepositionofwomen.Singh(1989:157)arguesthatthereformativeeffortsofthe1950sendedupbeingreducedto‘atenuousandemaciatedbodyfragmentedintomanylaws’andthusthroughoutthe1950s,malehegemonycontinuedtorule.Manyauthorscomplainthatmodernistlegislationwasnotradicalenoughandhasnotimprovedthelotofwomen.Singh(1980:85)makes(p.305) referencetoChinesefamilylawreforms,arguingthattheresulthasnotbeenacopyingofmodernWesternlovemarriage,buta‘situationwhereyoungcouplesagreetomarriageonthebasisofbothtraditionalandmodernChinesevalues,keepinginmindtheirparents’preferencesandadvice’.ForIndia,Singh(1989:161)evenasksforadegenderizedsocietyand,inastylereminiscentofMartinLutherKing,InduPrakashSingh(1990:xiv)imaginesherownidealsocietyofthefuture:

Ienvisagetheendofalloppressionofwomenandexploitationinadepatriarchisedsocialistdemocraticsociety.Letusjoinhandsinbuildingsuchanegalitariansocietywherewewouldnotbehavingwomenandmen(gendertypes)buthumans.

Morerealisticandacademicallycogent,Agnes(2000:77)speaksofstiltedeffortsatgenderjusticeinthepost-independenceperiod,findingthat:

…theunderlyingmotiveofthereformwasconsolidatingthepowersofthestateandbuildinganintegratednation.Thiscrucialobjectivecouldbeachievedonlybydilutingwomen’srightstoarriveatalevelofminimumconsensussothattheagendaofreformcouldbeeffectedwithoutmuchopposition.Severalcustomaryrightsweresacrificedtoarriveatuniformity.ThestatutesthatwerefinallyenactedweremerelyornamentalinsteadofbeingmarkersofgenuineandconcreteeffortsatrectifyingthegenderdiscriminationwrittenintotheHindulaw.

Thefactthatusingtheofficialmechanismsofthestatelawmayevenbe

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


counterproductiveisevidentfromSanjayMishravEvelineJobeAIR1993MP54.ThiscaseconcernsaHindumanandanIndianChristianwomanwhoallegedlymarried,butthe‘husband’refusedtoacknowledgethatalawfulmarriagehadtakenplace.ThewomanhaddistributedcopiesofamarriageregistrationdocumentundertheSMA1954toherfriends,whilethemanadmittedtohavingsignedcertainmarriageregistrationdocumentsinaRegistrar’soffice,butclaimedthatthishadhappenedunderduress.Thewomanallegedfurtherthattheyweremarriedin1985inafamousHindutempleinCalcutta,inaccordancewithHinducustomsandrites,andhadthereafterlivedashusbandandwife.ThejudgefoundthatundertheprovisionsoftheHMA,aHindumanandaChristianwomancouldnotvalidlymarry,thusthe‘wife’s’claimtohavefollowedHinducustomaryritualsofmarriagecouldnotbemaintained.Thelowercourtwascriticizedforoverlookingthedetailsregardingthepersonallawoftheparties:

Thetrialcourthasmerelygonebytheregistrationcertificate;butsuchregistrationisvalidonlywhenitisfoundthatthereisavalidmarriage.Wherethefactumitselfisdisputed,essentialceremonyconstitutingthemarriageintheinstantcaseinaccordancewithHinduritesmustbepleadedandprovedandtheperformanceofsuchritesmustbebroughtonrecords(p.58).

(p.306) WhileitwasquiteinappropriatetopresumeinthepresentcasethatasaptapadīritualwouldbeanessentialelementofthisHindumarriage,53thedecisionreachedbythecourtseemscorrect.Theregistrationdocumentbyitselfisnotsufficientconclusiveproofinlawthattherewasaproperlysolemnizedmarriagebetweentheparties.Thehusband’sappealwasthereforeallowed,andhemanagedtoextricatehimselffromhisunwantedlover.ThiscasewouldappeartoconfirmthatifwomenwanttosecuretheirlegalpositionasaHindu‘wife’,theywouldhavetoensurethattheyfollowthecustomaryHindulawonmarriagesolemnization.54Formalrecoursetothesecularstatelawonitsown,asthiscaseshows,isinsufficient.

Thus,despitetheprevalenceofmodernist,positivisticconceptions,modernIndianstatelawhasnotasserteditselfthroughabrogationofthetraditionalHindulawonmarriagesolemnization.Derrett(1963c:137–8)summarizedthelegalpositionsuccinctly,sayingthat‘[t]hesastricconceptofmarriageasasamskara(‘sacrament’),aunionoftwopersonsforallpurposes,spiritualandsecular,indissolubleevenbydeath,hasbeentrimmedbutnotdestroyedbylegislation’.Thispointstothefactthatthemodernistreformsofthe1950swerenotjustanawkward,haphazardcompromise.Asamethodoflegalregulation,thelegislativenon-interventioninHindumarriagesolemnizationreflectsarecognitionthatlawcannotjustbeimposedbythestate.Inthissense,thepost-colonialmodernistlawmakersalreadyimplantedtheseedsofapostmodernconditionintotheregulatorysystemwhichtheycreatedduringthe1950s.

PostmodernEvolutionofHinduMarriageLawTheimplantationofthesepostmodernseeds,combinedwithagrowingrealizationthatmodernistlegalreformsinpost-colonialIndiawerenotquitewhattheyclaimedtobe,laidthefoundationsforthepostmodernevolutionofHindumarriagelawduringthepastfewdecades.Goingbeyondamerecritiqueofmodernityanditselements,postmodernist

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


approaches—bothinscholarshipandinthelegaldomainofcasesandlegislation—havesearchedmorecriticallyforappropriatesolutions,whilerecognizingthatnoperfectsimpleremedymaybefoundtogoverncomplexsituations.

WithspecificreferencetoHindumarriagelaw,therealizationthatHindumarriage,asacentralelementofsociety,cannotbesubjectedtolegislativeintervention,formsamajorelementofHindulaw’scurrentpostmoderncondition.Thisrealizationhasledtolegislativeinaction,aformofnihilisticrefusalbythestatelawtogetinvolvedinregulationofHindumarriages.Itseemstohavebeenrealizedmorerecentlythatthereformistambitionsweretoograndandthemodernisttaskisjusttooenormous.Oneindicationofthisisthat(p.307) successiveParliamentshavebeenunwillingtoturnanumberofstatutoryproposalsbywomen’sgroups,inparticular,intoformallegislation.

ThesamescenariomotivatestheIndianjudiciarytodevoteexplicitrecognitiontotraditionalHinduvaluesrelatedtomarriage(whichmaybeexpressedinsecularlanguageabouttheneedforastablesociety),aprocesswhichhasimplicationsbeyondthenarrowrealmofHindumarriagelaw.ThepracticalendresultisthattherulesandconceptsoftraditionalHindulawhavebeengrantedanewleaseoflife.55Theynowappearwithintheformalframeworkof‘modern’Hindulaw,underminingthismodernity,asitwere,byexertingtraditionalsocioculturalandlegalinfluencethroughtheformalmechanismsofmodernIndianlaw.ThetraditionalHindulawofmarriagesolemnizationhassteadfastlyresistedmodernistattemptsatitsabrogation.

Derrettpredicted,throughouthislaterwritings,56thatdespitesomeevidenceofmodernization,thedominantviewinHindusocietyfortheforeseeablefuturewouldremainthatmarriageisaformofsocialobligation.Mitter(1992:20)notesthat,‘nothing,apparently,canbeworseforawomanthantoremainunattached,asocialpariah.InalltheseparateandunequalsocialworldscohabitinginanIndiancity,thereisconsensusononepoint:awomanneedstohavemarriedstatus.Attheleast,sheneedstohavehadahusband,once’.However,Nair(1978:v)observessignificantsocialchange,notingthat‘[m]arriageisperhapstheonlyinstitutionwhichhasundergonearapidchange’andevensuggeststhat‘present-daymarriagepracticesleadonetobelievethattheinstitutionisbecominganunwelcomeaffair’.YetthisdoesnotamounttosuggestingthattheabolitionofmarriageisviableinIndiansociety;itreflectsatbestthepossibilityofanindividual,privatechoice,whichwas,afterall,familiartoancientHindutradition,too.57

TowardsaPostmodernDiscourse

InthisregarditisinstructivetorefertotheDowryProhibitionActof1961,whichiswidelyseenasanexampleofthefutileattemptsbythestatelawtoabolishsocio-legalpracticesinIndiansociety.58Jain(1990:625–6)arguesthat(p.308) ‘[i]tremainsverydoubtfulwhethersomeofthebadsocialpracticeswhichareingraineddeeplyinthesocialpsychecanbeabolishedmerelybylegislation’.Disgustedwiththehorriblestalemateoverthousandsofdowrydeathseveryyear,somewomenactivistsbegantocallforamoralreappraisal(Kishwar1990).Yet,doesthismeanthatthewheelofhistoryshouldinfactbeturnedbacktoAśoka’sidealism?Postmodernistanalysisrecognizes(albeitwith

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


somereluctance)thattheoldHinduconceptsof‘examiningone’sconscience’(ātmanastuṣṭi)and‘modelbehaviour’(sadācāra)retaintheirrelevancetoday.Whilesomemodernistcommentatorshavetremendousdifficultieswiththiskindofapproach,itcannotbejustdismissedoutofhand.WhileitclearlyremainspoliticallyincorrectandambivalenttohighlighttheoperationoftraditionalHinduconceptsinmodernIndia,globalcomparativejurisprudentialtheorysuggeststhatalllegalsystemscontinuouslyfeedontheirparticular,culture-specific‘legalpostulates’(Chiba1986;Menski2000a).So,whatiswrongwithIndiarelyingonHinduconceptstoreconstructitslegalsystem?

ModernistanalysissimplypresumedthatanyelementsortracesofHindulawbelongtomedievaltimes.59WarningsfromProfessorDerrettandafewothersthatmodernizinglegalreformscouldgotoofarandwouldendupproducinginjusticeinthenameofthelaw,werenottakenseriouslyforalongtime.WhilesuchargumentsaremoredirectlyrelevantforHindudivorcelaw,problemshavearisennotonlyatthesubstantiveleveloflegalrules,butalsoclearlyinthesphereoflegaltheory.Isstatelawreallyabletodictatetosocietyandalleviatesocialproblemsintheprocess?60

However,somerecognitionofthelimitsofmodernityisnowprovidedbymodernistwriterssuchasAgnes(2000:90),whoarguesthatthenewrightsgiventowomeninthe1950s‘aremoreconceptualthanactual.Whileattemptingtoresolvesomeissues,thecodificationhasforegroundedotherswhichhaveyettofindasatisfactorysolution’.Agnes(2000:211)notesfurtherthatthefamilylawdebatesareonlyconvenientlybroughtintothepublicarena‘insupportofotherhiddenpoliticalobjectives’.Whileearliertheuniformcivil(p.309) codeandincreasedpropertyrightsforwomenwerefocalpointsfordebate,Agnes(2000:177)confirmsthatwomen’sgroupsandfeministactivismarenowconcentratingonlegalissuesaroundviolenceagainstwomen.Theliteraturereflectsagrowingrealizationthat,justasthecolonialinterventionactuallydisadvantagedwomenfurther,asitimportedandrocentricWesternnotionswhichdamagedSouthAsianwomen(Chandra1998),post-colonialmodernistreformswerenotabletogetridofthepatriarchalframeworkofreferenceeither.Inherconcludingdiscussion,Agnes(2000:203)observes:

Whileexaminingtheevolutionoffamilylawssituatedwithinapatriarchalsocialstructure,discriminationagainstwomenisaforegoneconclusion.Caste,classandclanpuritiesaremaintainedthroughastrictsexualcontrol.Punitivedeterrentmeasuresanddenialofeconomicrightsarethemeansthroughwhichthiscontrolisexercised.

Agnes(id.)alsoarguesthatthehistoryofwomen’srightsisnotlinear,withreligiousandcustomarylawsatoneextremeendofthescale,andstatutoryreformsslowlyprogressingtowardstheotherend,asispopularlybelieved:‘Thehistoryiscomplexwithvariousinteractiveforcesconstantlyatplay…ithasbeenacaseof“gainsome,losesome”’(id.).Takingadifferentapproach,butthinkingalongsimilarlines,Parashar(1992:113)assertsthattheIndianlawreformerswerenotactuallyaimingtofundamentallyredefinetherolesofwomen.Sheobservesthat,inthe1950s,therewasnoradicalbreakwithHindutraditionallaw.TheMarriageandDivorceBillpreparedbythefirstHinduLaw

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


Committeewasostensiblydesignedtoincorporatethe‘bestpartsofthecodeofManuratherthanthosewhichfallshortofthebest’(id.).Inotherwords,therewasnorealmodernistlegalrevolution,butratheraslighttinkeringofHindulawattheedges,whichiscertainlythecaseinHindumarriagelaw.

Feministshaveoftenhighlightedthatsomeinstitutionswhichareconsiderednecessaryarenotinfacttestedassuch(Singh1989:23).Theythusengageintalkofcounter-institutionsandtheobliterationofpatriarchalinstitutionslikefamily,marriage,andthelegalsystem,aimingforanoverthrowofthepatriarchizedsocietyintoto.Yetdissentingvoices,suchasSingh(1989:31),arguethatrevolutionaloneisnotenough,asshowninthesocialistcountries:‘Whatmoreisneededisaconscientizingrevolution—aphenomenologicalreality—whichwouldnotonlyemancipatewomenbutalsomen’.Derrett(1978a)emphasizedthatpointalongtimeago.Thechallengeishugeandlargelybeyondtheambitofthestatelaw.

Fromtheangleofconstitutionallaw,ithasbeenevidentforsometimethattheprojectofmodernlawreformsinIndiacouldnotmeaningfullyguaranteeandoffertothecitizenstheidealsthatthelawpromised.Minattur(1980:165)highlightedthatunderArticle15(3)oftheConstitution,nothingshallpreventthestatefrommakinganyspecialprovisionforwomenandchildren.Sotherewasanexplicitprovisionpermittingthestatetodiscriminateinfavourofwomen,ifsuchdiscriminationwasfoundnecessary.Minattur(1980:166)notedthat‘anumberoflawswereadoptedwithaviewtoensuringequality0fstatus(p.310) andopportunityforwomen’,whileinpractice,equalitycontinuestoeludewomen.Minattur(1980:178)concluded:

…itisclearthatsomethingmorethanlegislationisrequired.Perhapsthefirstthingtobeattemptedistomakewomenawareoftheirrights,howeverthisisdone.Itisalsonecessarytochangetheattitudesofbothmenandwomen,ofsocietyingeneral,tosocialobjectivessoughttobeachievedbylegislation.Aradicalchangeintheattitudesofwomeninducedbyanawarenessoftheirrightswhichareconstitutionallyguaranteedandlegallyprotectedwillbethefirststepinthecomplexprocessoftransformingthesocialstructuresothatwomenmayenjoyfullequalitywithmenineverysphereoflife.

Agnes(2000:206)alsoobservesthattheConstitutionwithitsmandateofequalitybroughtinvisionsofgenderjustice:

Restructuringofthefeudalfamilylawstosuittheneedsofwomenwithinamoderndemocracywasthechallengebeforethenewlyindependentstate.Butthemuch-trumpetedHindulawreformsofthepost-independenceperiodwereconcernedmorewithhomogenizingtheculturallydiverseHinducommunitythroughauniformsetofstateregulatedenactmentsthanwideningthescopeofwomen’srights.Hencecrucialwomen’srightslocatedwithincustomarylawswerecompromised.TheenactmentsturnedouttobeacuriousmixtureoftheEnglishlawandtheshastriclawwiththeworstbiasesofbothwrittenintothem.

Inviewofsuchshortcomingsofthemodernistlawreformproject,manymodernistshave

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


developedcoldfeet.WesawintheprevioussectioninthischapterhowQureshi(1978)arguedvigorouslyinfavourofsignificantstateinterventioninmarriagelaw.Inhisconclusions,Qureshi(1978:371–2)takesuptheissueofmarriageregistrationagain,butthisarticulateMuslimauthorisnowback-pedallingonhisearlierreformistzeal,advancingreligiousarguments:

Asregardstheessentialceremonies,thereisasimilaritybetweenallthelaws.Itissubmittedthatthisispurelyareligiousmatterandthestatecannotinterfere…Completede-emotionalisationinmarriageisnotahealthypracticeandismostunsuitabletoIndianswhoarevibrantwithemotiontemperamentally.MerelysigningthemarriageagreementwillnotsatisfythepsychologyofIndians.Therefore,allcitizensshouldbeallowedtomarryaccordingtotheirownceremonies.However,thesemarriagesshouldbegotregistered.Themethodofregistrationshouldbe30daysfromthedateofmarriage.

EvidenceoftheactualextentofmarriageregistrationinIndiacontradictsloudmodernistassertionsthatstatecontrolwouldbeaviablemethodofregulatingHindumarriagelaw.PujariandKaushik(1994,III:305)reportstatisticsofmarriageregistrationundertheSMA1954fortheperiod1968–72.61InBombay,(p.311) 601marriagesin1968and816in1972wereregisteredinthismanner,nomorethanthirteenperyearinRajasthan,andnoteven250inDelhi.ThefiguresforregistrationofmarriagessolemnizedunderotherlawsbutregisteredundertheSMAaremuchlower,withnomorethanforty-threemarriagesin1970forBombayasthemaximum.62

Whilereformersandmodernistacademiccommentatorsstillpushforcompulsoryregistrationofmarriages,itisquiteevidentthatIndiansarenotreadytoacceptsuchaformal,bureaucraticregime.63Apostmodernanalysiswouldsuggestthat,inactualfact,nolegalsystemintheworldachievesabsolutecertaintyofmaritalstatus.64Basu(2001:36),whoseargumentsformodernreformswerecitedabove,alsoadmitsthattherearelimitstowhatlawcanachieve:

Attemptstobringaboutchangesinthestatusofwomaneitherthroughlegislationorjudicialactivismcanachievelittlesuccesswithoutasimultaneousmovementtotransformthesocialandeconomicstructuresandtheculture(values,ideologiesandattitudes)ofsociety.

Iyer(1993:1)similarlyemphasizesthatsocialjusticeinIndiameansalsogenderjustice,butnotesthatnoquantumleapshavebeenmadeandthatthisisnotjustanIndianproblem,sincetheUSAhas‘failedtoratifyintoitsconstitutionequalityofthesexes’(ibid.:2).Muchdependsonprivateandindividualinitiative,butthereisalsoaroleforthestateinpromotinggenderjustice.Iyer(1993:16)advisesinthisrespectthatIndianwomenmustdemandmoreeconomicandsocialdignityinpracticalterms.Healsosuggeststhattheprivatesector,likethepublicsector,shallbeboundtorespectequalityofsexes‘onpainofthestatewithdrawingalllicences,loansandotherfacilities.TheStateshall,throughallitsprocesses,compeltheprivatesectortocomplywiththedemandsofgenderjustice’.Theseareagainmuchwideragendathathavelostsightofmarriagelawasakeyissue.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


Inanearlymixtureofmodernistandpostmodernanalysis,Derrett(1978a:159)notedthattheIndianjudgeseventuallyunderwroteHindumarriageasasacramentbutwereinitiallyunsure:

Judges,confusedbytheinitialerrorofcommentatorswhoneglectedthegreatshiftinallegiancewhichoccurredintheéliteduringthosevitalyears,(p.312) andobliviousofthequaintnessofasinglemarriagelawbeingappliedtoallHindusindiscriminately,havecomeout,almostintuitively,withthesuggestionorratherapprehensionthatmarriageisstillasamskara,asforthevastmajorityitis.

Derrett(id.)alsoobservesthat‘thisisunderstandablylessevidentinrecentyears’,whichonemaytakeasareferencetothegrowingstrengthofmodernistnotions.However,theideathatmarriagemustbeupheld,notforthesakeofHindutradition,butforthegoodofsocietyandtheprotectionofwomenthemselves,alsocomesthrough,atp.163.WhiletheEnglishcourtswerenotinterestedinreconciliation,Derrett(1978a:197)stressesthatIndianHindulawdidretainthejudicialdutytocheckwhetheramarriagecouldstillberescued.Thissubjectbelongsmoreproperlyintoadiscussionondivorce,butthelinksbetweenmarriageanddivorcelawdonotpermitwatertightsegregation.Howastatelegalsystemwillhandleoneoftheseareasofthelawwillinevitablyinfluencetheother.

AnotherexampleoflinksbetweendifferentareasoflawhasbeenidentifiedbyAgnes(2000:180),whochallengesthemodernistassumptionthatcompulsoryregistrationofHindumarriageswillautomaticallybebeneficial,pointingtoacrucialconfusion:

Iftherightsofcohabiteesareonparwiththerightsofspousesthenregistrationservesnopurposeatallandtherewouldbenocompulsiontoregisteramarriageinasocietywheremarriagesareviewedmoreassocialfunctionsthanaslegalcontracts.Alsoifmarriagesandinformalcohabitationsaregrantedsimilarweightageandaredeemedasoffencesthenthewholepremiseuponwhichconvictionforbigamyisbasedcollapses.Heretheexistinglawmakesacleardistinctionbetweensolemnmarriagesandillegitimateandinformalallianceswheretheceremonyofsolemnizationandpermanencyoftherelationshipisofgreatestrelevance.Thewideningofthescopewouldrenderadulteryanoffenceratherthanbigamy.Butinthesamestroke,itisrecommendedthatadulteryoughtnottobedeemedasanoffence.Sothereisanambiguityaboutwhetherthefocusofthereformiscurbingsexualimmoralitybyapenalprovisionorprotectingwomen’seconomicrightsthroughwideningthescopeofmaintenancetoincludewomenininformalalliances.

Agnes(2000:183)observesthatmanycountriesinSouthAsiastipulatecompulsoryregistration,butnocountryhasextendedthissofarastoinvalidateanexistingmarriage,withadverseimplicationsforwomenandchildren.65She(p.313) notesthat,‘[i]nfact,themoderntrendistowardsgrantingrightsandbenefitstopeopleininformalrelationships’(id.),whileinIndiatheofficialtrendisstilltiltingtowardsgreaterregimentationinfamilyrelationships.However,shefailstoidentifythatsomethingmust

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


thereforebewrongwithmodernistIndianscholarshiponfamilylawreforms.

Infact,inmovingtowardsapostmoderndiscourse,Agnes(2000:176ff.)hasdiligentlypreparedthegroundforacriticalanalysisofIndianfamilylawbyproducingadetailedmodernistdiscussionofanumberofMarriageBillsformulatedbylegalscholars,women’sorganizations,andotherbodies.66Herstatedaimistotestthesevariousreformsuggestionsfortheirmodernity.Inturn,sheconcludesthattheexistingsuggestionsdonotgofarenoughand,aboveall,donotconsidersufficientlywelltheeconomicneedsandentitlementsofwomen.

Agnesthusfindsthatinthehighlypoliticizedclimateofmodernistlawreformdebate,rhetoricdominatesoveraclearunderstandingofpolicyandasenseofrealism.ThedominantagendaoftheuniformcivilcodehavegivendisproportionateattentiontoMuslimlaw,communalizingandtherebyblockinganyprogressivedebates.Agnes(2000:209)ishighlycriticalofthelegalreformproposalsofvariousbodies.Inherview,suggestionsforreforminfamilylawswhichsetouttoredefinegenderrelationswithinmarriageandthefamily,wouldhavetotakeintoconsiderationvarioussocial,political,legal,andeconomicrealities.But,assherightlyclaims(id.),‘thedraftsfortheenactmentofaUniformCivilCodeframedbythelegalacademia,donotseemtohavecontextualizedwomen’srightswithinthesediversecomplexities.ThemodelforreformistheHinduMarriageActwhichinturnisbasedonarchaicEnglishprinciples’.67

Theauthorthereforeseemstohavemuchreasontofindfaultwitheverythingsheseesinmodernistdebates.Forexample,Agnes(2000:182)notesthattheMarriageBill,1994asformulatedbytheNationalCommissionforWomen‘makessweepingandunrealisticrecommendations,throwingallcautiontothewinds’.Agnes(2000:182–3)notes:

TheprimaryconcernoftheBillseemstobeabolitionofpolygamybyensuringcompulsoryregistrationofmarriages.Butinsteadofafacilitatingmeasure(ofprovidingproofincaseofdispute),registrationbecomesanendinitself.

(p.314) TheBillstipulatesthatadeclarationofmarriagemustbesenttotheRegistrarofmarriageswithinthreedaysofitsperformance.AfineofRs100perdayisleviedfordefaultforaperiodofonemonthandthereafterthemarriageisdeemedvoid.

Agnesisvocallycriticalofsuchproposalsandcommentsinvariouscontextsontheperniciouseffectsthatsuchformalisticlegalregulationwouldhaveforwomenandchildren,inparticular.Apartfromwarningaboutanincreaseinstatecontroloverpeople’slives(ibid.:187),animportantelementofheranalysis,Agnes(2000:183)alsonotestheresourceimplicationsofsuchreformproposals:

Whileprescribingsuchstringentmeasuresofcompulsoryregistration,thefactthatthegovernmenthasnotbeenabletoprovidebarenecessitieslikecleandrinkingwater,primaryeducationandbasichealthfacilitiestoalargesectionofitspeoplehasbeenoverlooked.TheBilldoesnotspelloutthemeasuresthroughwhichthegovernmentwillmakeitpossibleforpeopletoregistertheirmarriageswithinthree

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


daysofitsperformance.

Inaconsolidateddiscussionofthemainpoints,Agnes(2000:186–7)examinesthemajorelementsofthevariousmodernistreformproposals.Herfirstpointisfocusedontheuniformcivilcodeagenda.Agnes(2000:186)findsthat‘aconsensusseemstobesteadily,albeitgradually,emergingthattheprocessoffamilylawreformhastobecautious.Enforcingacompulsoryuniformcivilcodefromabovemaynotbethebestsolution’.Significantly,Agnes(2000:187)opposestheuseoftheterm‘spouse’anddemandsexplicitrecognitionofthespecificneedsofwomen.68Arguingthatanyrecommendationshavetobebasedonthesubstantivemodelofequality,sheasksforgreaterclarityregardingthetheoreticalframework,particularlyforacademics.Agnes(2000:188)doesnotappeartoseemuchhopeforsignificantlegalreformsinthenearfutureandthereforeissuesarallyingcall:

Women’srightsseemtobelostinthelargercontroversyaroundUniformCivilCodewhichtoday,hasbecomeapoliticalquestion.Onlythroughastepbystepapproachtobringinsmallandspecificreformthroughconcentratedcampaignscantherightsofwomenbesalvagedfromthepoliticalentanglewithinwhichtheyarecurrentlyenmeshed.

Agnes(2000:211)concludesthat‘‘women’srightsis[sic]notaprimaryconcernofthedominantforces’andarguesfinallythat‘thereisaneedtolocatepropertyatthecentreofmatrimoniallawreform’(ibid.:215).ThereismuchinthisrichanalysiswhichcanbesalvagedforapostmodernanalysisofHinduandIndianfamilylaw.Withspecificreferencetomarriagelaw,itishighlysignificantthatAgnes(2000:210)alsonotesthatthemodernstatemayinfactbeasgoodasirrelevantwhenitcomestoHindumarriageanddivorce:

(p.315) ThefactthattheHinduMarriageActhasvalidateddiversecustomsofmarriageanddivorce,seemstohavebeenoverlookedbythezealousreformers.AlthoughtheHinduMarriageActsetoutto‘reform’Hindulawandbringitunderthestatecontrolandregulations,sufficientscopewasprovidedforHinducustomsandpractices.Henceunderthepresentstatute,aHinduneedneverapproachastatefunctionaryorareligiousinstitutioneitherforsolemnizationofhis/hermarriageorforitsdissolution.

Ontheground,itwillalwaysremaintemptingforsomelitigants(andtheirlegaladvisers)tomisusethestate-sanctionedcustomaryflexibilityofHindumarriagetraditionsforobviouspecuniarybenefit,therebydamagingtheinterestsofwomen,especiallywidowsandremarriedwomen.Thecaselawconfirmsthatproblemsforthefemaleclaimantmaybemultipliedifshewaspreviouslymarriedtosomeoneelse.69

ManyreportedcasesunderSection7oftheHMAconstitutebonafidepetitionsbyHinduwomenseekingtoasserttheirrightsarisingfromtheirmarriagetoaHindumale.Still,theargumentthatanywomanwhoclaimstobemarriedtoaHindumalemustautomaticallybebelieved,doesnotrecommenditself.Itwouldencouragefalseclaimsofformalmarriage,wheninfacttherewasperhapsonlyaninformalliaison.Actually,thiskindofscenariopointstounresolvedlegalproblemsovertheboundariesbetweenpolygamyandunmarriedcohabitation.Theexistingacademicandlegaldiscussions,whilemoving

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


towardsapostmoderndiscourseinstudyingandunderstandingHindumarriagelaw,havehardlybeguntorealizethatanystrictlyformalregulationofHindumarriagewouldhavepotentiallynegativeconsequencesforthosemanywomenwhoarepartytoaquasi-maritalrelationshipthatmaynothavefullsocialsanction(seeAgnes2000:180,citedearlier).Itismorethanclearfromtheexistingcaselawthatsuchwomenoftenneedspecialprotectionthroughflexibleandsituation-specificapplicationofthecriteriaforHindumarriage.Thus,whilescholarlydebateshavebeguntorealizethelimitsofmodernistdiscourse,thisrecognitionhasdevelopedinignoranceoftherealityofthepostmodernconditionthathasbeenevolvingandblossomingthroughtheapplicationofHindumarriagelawintheIndiancourts.

AnEmergingPostmodernCondition:CaseLawEvidence

Detailedresearchoncaselawshowsmanyreportedandunreporteddisputesinwhichthestrictofficiallegalpositionon‘properceremonies’wasexploitedbyruthlesshusbandsduringthe1970sand1980stothedetrimentofwomen.(p.316) Lookingmorecloselyatthecases,however,IfoundthatthecaselawunderSection7oftheHMAactuallyfallsintotwotypes,namelyappealsbyHinduhusbandsseekingtoavoidaprosecutionforpolygamy,andcasesbyHinduwomenclaimingtheirentitlementsfromthemarriage.WhereHinduhusbandswereaccusedandconvictedofbigamy,andwentonappeal,thecourtstriedtoassisttheman,developingintheprocessastrictlyformalcaselawthatseemstograntonlycompletelyritualizedHindumarriagesfulllegalrecognition.Thisstrictness,however,isonlypartlyexplainedbytheevidentiaryrequirementsofthecriminallaw;70itisalsobasedonapro-meninterpretation,simplytoavoidthatthepolygamoushusbandshouldbepunishedorevensenttojail.

Bythemid-1980s,theconsequencesoftakingthisbiasedangleinthecaselawbecameverybadforwomenandchildrenandjudgesrealizedthattherewasasecondtypeofcaseconcerningHindumarriagesolemnization.Herethekeyissuewastheentitlementsofthewifeasaresultofthemarriage.SomeSupremeCourtjudgesbegantorealizehowdangerouslyeasyithadbecomeforHindumentodivesttheirwivesofrightfulclaims.Wherecouldtheygoforhelpifthecourtsdidnotinterveneinabalancedmanner?Thisrealizationapparentlywenthandinhandwithgrowingjudicialactivismandawarenessaboutthemaintenancerightsofdivorcedwives.71However,ratherthanmakingabigissueoutofthis,forexamplebypubliclydemaskingtheoldpro-menprecedentofBhauraoShankarAIR1965SC1564,theSupremeCourtchoseamoresubtlestrategy,applyingapresumptionofmarriageinsteadofdemandingstrictproof.Becauseofthesubtletyemployedhere,mostlegalwritersdidnotnoticethesecondtypeofHinducaselawonmarriagesolemnization,whilemanypractisinglawyerswereonlytoohappytooverlooktheemergentpostmodernlegalpositioninthecaselawonHindumarriagesolemnization.

ItappearsthatthesubtletransitionoftheHindumarriagelawintoapostmoderncondition,underthesecondtypeofcaselaw,canbelocatedinSumitraDevivBhikhanChoudharyAIR1985SC765.ThiswasanappealbyaHinduwifefromBiharagainsttherefusalofherclaimtomaintenance,resistedbythehusbandonvariousgrounds,

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


includingtheallegationthatshewasnotproperlymarriedtohim.ThisbriefcasereportcontainsanimportantrestatementofthelawbytheSC,whichhardlyanybodyseemstohavepickedupatthetime.72RanganathMisraJ,criticizingthetechnicalapproachtakenbythelowercourtandtheHC,heldatp.766:

(p.317) ThereisnodoubtthatinorderthattheremaybeavalidmarriageaccordingtoHindulaw,certainreligiousriteshavetobeperformed.InvokingthefireandperformingSaptapadiaroundthesacredfirehavebeenconsideredbythisCourttobetwoofthebasicrequirementsforatraditionalmarriage.Itisequallytruethattherecanbeamarriageacceptableinlawaccordingtocustomswhichdonotinsistonperformanceofsuchritesasreferredtoaboveandmarriagesofthistypegiverisetolegalrelationshipswhichlawaccepts.

Wehearnotawordaboutmodernismorpostmodernism,butthelearnedjudgeisineffectdecreeingpostmodernpluralism,layingdownthatexplicitrecognitionofthefactsandcircumstancesofindividualcasesismoreimportantthanfollowingtheSupremeCourt’sownprecedentsintheotherlineofcasesonmarriagesolemnization.Justice,inotherwords,ismorevaluablethantheformalityofthelaw.Thisdecisionclearlyrefutesthemodernist,uniforming,formallyrigidlegalpositionthathadbuiltupinthelineofcasesinvolvingpolygamoushusbands.Thejudgeavoidsfurtherdiscussionbyswiftlyremittingthecasetothelowercourtfordisposal.InSumitraDevi,thetangibleissuewastheentitlementoftheHinduwifetorecognitionofhermarriedstatusandherfinancialclaims.HereweseepostmodernIndiansocialwelfarelawinaction.ButonlyifweunderstandtheinherentprinciplesofHindulawareweabletorecognizethattheSCreliedinthisotherwiseinsignificantcasenotonastate-basedmodernformoflegalregulation,butontheflexibletraditionalHinduconceptsofself-controlledordering—ifnecessarywithalittlepushfromthecourts.Thereasonfordoingsowasagaintoavoidinjusticetowomen,notglorificationofHindunormsorprinciplesofHindulaw.Andyet,ineffect,thiscasestronglyupholdsthecustomarydiversityoftraditionalHindumethodsofmarriagesolemnization.Itis,however,notabackward-lookingdecisionthattiesHindumentoreligiousobligations,butaforward-lookingsocialwelfareapproachdesignedtoprotecttheinterestsofweakersectionsinsociety.

Asindicated,thiswasprimarilyamaintenancecase,sohardlyanybodynoticedthelinkwiththelawofmarriagesolemnization.73ThepredicamentsofHinduwomeninthisregardhavebeencomplicatedwhenthemarriageritualsinquestionweretruncatedorinsomewaymodifiedfromearliercustomarypatterns.AsseenintheearliersectiononmodernistreformstoHindumarriagelaw,thiswasalreadythecaseinDeivainiAchiAIR1954Mad657,onaccountofsocialchangesinthatparticularcommunityof‘self-respecters’.74Problemshavearisenforremarriedwomen,especiallywidowsmarryingawidower,whowouldcustomarilyperformonlyminimalrituals.ThewomeninsuchcasesshouldbeprotectedunderthewideumbrellaofSection7ofthe(p.318) HMA,butthetwistedcaselawonHindupolygamyhasposedconsiderableriskstomanyHinduwomen.

Moredetailedresearchonsuchcaseswouldshowvariouscustomaryformsoftruncatedoreventotallyabsentmarriagerituals,andtheconsequentapplicationofa

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


presumptionofmarriage.75ApartfromSikhmarriagecustomswhichhavelongallowedforremarriageinthekarewaform,therearecasesinvolvingHindusfromMaharashtra,76Kerala,77andotherpartsofIndia,allacceptingthelegalvalidityofunusualmarriageceremonies,withsomeofthemconcerningwidowremarriages.

Incontrast,thedreadfulcaseofSurjitKaurvGarjaSinghAIR1994SC135concernedaSikhwidow’sclaimtoashareinthedeceasedhusband’sproperty,whichwasfiercelyresistedbythehusband’sfamily.Allegingthatthewidowwasnotadecentwoman,evidentcharacterassassinationwasemployedthroughtheallegationthat‘SurjitKaurwasinthehabitofchanginghusbandsfrequently’(p.136).BoththeChandigarhHCandtheSupremeCourtappeartohavebeenimpressedbysuchanti-womenrhetoricandsexualinnuendo,therebyoverlookingtheoveralljusticeinvolvedanditswatchdogfunction.ThiscaseprovidesstrongevidenceoflackofjudicialsensitivityaboutgenderandHindumarriagesolemnization,andissimplyabadcase(Menski1995b;2001:33–5).ItisofcoursenotuniquetoIndianlaworHindulawthatthereshouldbeconflictinglegalpositions.Butinthiscasesomethingelsewentseriouslywrong:Thiswoman’sclaimtopropertyentitlementwastreated,intermsofevidencelaw,likeaman’sdefenceagainstpolygamy.Asaresult,thestrictcriteriaforcustomaryritualswereapplied,insteadofconsideringapresumptionofmarriage,aswasdoneinothercasesatthesametime,inthesameyear,andevenbythesamecourt.78

Aneasysuitablesolutiontothiskindoflegalproblemcannotbefound,asmodernistreformersarealwaystemptedtoargue,byremovingHindumarriagetraditionsandbringinginmodernsecularstatelaw.Marriageremainsahumansocialinstitutionresistanttototalitarianmodernistregimentation.Moreover,theIndianlegalsystemisclearlynotinaposition,forfinancialaswellasorganizationalreasons,tointroduceacompulsorymarriageregistrationsystem(p.319) asabasisfordeterminingthelegalvalidityofallmarriages,aprerogativethatEnglishlawandmostWesternjurisdictionshaveclaimed,butareevidentlyfailingtomaintain.79

Therefore,hereisanotherelementofpostmodernanalysisrelevanttothepresentcase:UnlikeprosperousandfairlysmallWesterncountries,ahugenationlikeIndiawillevidentlyneverbeinapositiontoattachwelfarerightentitlementstomarriedstatus.Atanyrate,thenumberofpotentialclaimantswouldbeunmanageable.Thelegalsystemthereforemustcontinue,ofnecessity,torelyonthetraditionalcustomarypatternsofmarriagesolemnization.Publicrecognitionofmaritalstatusthroughsocialprocessesmustremainthemaincriterion.Iftheaimistoprotectwomen,theirpositionandbargainingpowerinsocietyhastobestrengthened.Wedonotneednewlawsforthat,butactivistengagementforprotectionofindividualrights.

Atthesametime,therearedeepersocioculturalreasonsforwhyHindumarriagesolemnizationwithoutdulyelaboratedritualization(howeverdiffuselyperceivedinanyparticularsituation),orsimpleregistrationofmarriage,willremainwidelyunacceptable.80Firstly,withintheṛta/dharmacontext,anunsolemnizedmarriagebetweenHindusissimplynotaHindumarriage,becausetheinvisiblelinksbetweenmacrocosmicworldand

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


microcosmicspherehavenotbeencreated.Itisarguablethatforthisbasicculturalreasonalone,andnotjustoutofafearof‘illicitsex’,mostHindusfindasystemofunmarried‘cohabitation’deeplyunsatisfactoryandevenoffensive.Itfollowsthattheywouldthereforenotbesatisfiedwithstate-controlledformalregistrationproceduresbythemselves.TheywouldtreatthemselvesasmarriedonlyaftertheHinduritualsofsolemnizationhavebeencompleted.81

Allofthisputspaidtomodernisthopesfroma‘lawanddevelopment’or‘socialengineeringthroughlaw’angle.Bytheearly1990s,itwasbecomingincreasinglyclearallaroundthatIndianlawnolongereventriestofollow(p.320) suchWesternmodels(Menski1996b;2001).Then,whatwouldbethepointofanelaboratesystemofmarriageregistrationiftheinformationproducedwouldanywaybeofnorealusetothestateandcouldnotbefullyandreliablycollectedinthefirstplace?Thenewsystemwouldinevitablycreatemoreproblemsthanitmighteverhopetosolve.

Indeed,asseenfromthediscussionbyAgnes(2000)asoutlinedabove,itismorewidelyrecognizedtodaythattheformalintroductionofcompulsoryregistrationofallmarriagesinIndiawouldonlycreatemanynewsocio-legalproblemsandisnotasensibleitemofreformprogrammesforthestate.82Mostcrucially,itwouldnotbeaneffectiveremedyforwomenwhoareindangerofbeingdeniedmaritalstatus.ThisdoesnotsimplymeanthatIndiahasfailedtomodernize,therefore,butthatthisimportantcountryanditslegalsystemhaveconsciouslychosennottofollowtherouteofWesternmodernizingmodelsandarerelyinginsteadonindigenousmethodsofself-controlledordering.Derrett(1978a:121)anticipatedthislongago,pointingtothefactthattheoverwhelmingmajorityofHinduslivedinvillagesandtothem,‘acivilmarriageimpliesanegationofeverythingthattheyliveby’.83

AcombinedreadingofSections7and8oftheHMA1955confirmsthatthedominantcriterionforlegalvalidityofHindumarriagesinIndiaremainsobservanceofcustomarymarriagerituals,andnot—asinmostWesterncountries—compliancewiththestate’slawonmarriageregistration.Giventhatcustomarynormsandconventionsaredecidedbypeopleandatthelocallevel,thisconstitutesacomprehensiveabdicationoftheIndianstate’sclaimtoregulatemarriagelaw.Thisisacriticalandsignificantfindingwhich,somehow,modernistscholarshiphasbeenreluctanttorecognize.

Thecourtsystem,therefore,remainstheonlyformalelementofsuperveningstatecontrolinthisfield.FromaHindulawperspective,thisislittlemorethanasupervisorymechanism,akindofsafetynettopreventblatantinjustice,arolethatisfamiliarlyknowninHindulegaltradition.Itisthusnotaninstitutionwhoseinvolvementmustbesoughtineverycase.Infact,liketheancientHinduruler’scourt,andintandemwiththeprinciplesofvyavahāra,formalrecoursetodisputesettlementmechanismsshouldnotbemadeunlessattemptsatself-controlledorderinghavefailed.ThisconfirmsthefindingbyseveralauthorsthatHindusinIndiatodaydonotneedthestatetomarryand(p.321)todivorce.Ratherthanbeingseenassomedeficientaberration,thisactuallyreflectsthepostmodernconditionofHindumarriagelaw.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


Thepresentanalysis,thus,pointstoapoliterefusalonthepartoftheIndianstatetocarryanyrealresponsibilityforthemaintenanceofanyformallawonmarriagesolemnization.TheIndianpostmodernstate,inamoreorlesssilentprocessofsurrender,recognizestheinternalpowerandstrengthofHinduconceptsandcustomarynorms,andthusreliesonsocietytoself-regulate,withoutexplicitlyusingancienttermslikesadācāra.Ineffect,thestatehashandedultimateauthoritynottosomesaffronmen,buttothepeopleofIndia,whoareafterall—atleastinconstitutionalrhetoric—thesovereignauthorityofthenation.Evenfromaconstitutionalangle,thus,thissubtleregroupingoflegalauthoritiesisbeyondreproach.Itisabouttimethatanthropologicalandlegalscholarshiprecognizesthisscenarioasapostmodernconditionandembarksonnewcriticalresearchthatmovesbeyondmodernistparadigmsandindoctrinationtoanalysetheresultinglegalquestionswhichthispostmodernconditionposes.

Notes:

(1)FollowingthesagaciousadviceofProfessorDerrett,IwrotemyPh.DthesisonHindumarriageconceptsandthesolemnizationofHindumarriages(Menski1984).

(2)DerretthimselfhadlongbeeninterestedinwhattypesofmaritalexpectationstheHinduweddingritualsdramatized,andhesetmeonarichseamofmaterialthatstillrequiresexhaustiveresearch.Derrett(1978a:197–8)contrastedthepresuppositionsofWesternspousesandthetrendtowardseasyremarriagewiththeobservationthatIndianspouses‘haveonlythemostbasicandcrudeexpectations.Thosewhomarrywithlowexpectationsareseldomdisappointedwitheachother’(ibid.:198).

(3)Likeeveryoneelse,HindushavetheoptiontoregistertheirmarriageundertheSMA1954.Insomecasesofmarriagebetweenspousesofdifferentreligiousand/orculturalbackgroundsitisnotonlyadvisablebutalsorequiredbythelegalsystemtoregisterthemarriageformallywiththestateauthorities.

(4)TheleadingstudiesinthisfieldhavebeenproducedbySanskritists.SeeinparticularPandey(1969);Chatterjee(1972–4);Chatterjee(1972);Apte(1978);Chatterjee(1978).

(5)Mostrecently,Basu(2001)isanexampleofsuchwriting,whileThomas(2000:14)takesadimviewofmarriageitself,treatingitas‘aninstitutionofsex-slavery’.Hereisamodernauthorwhoapparentlyhasideologicalproblemswithmarriageitselfandfumesaboutallaspectsofpatriarchy.Suchwritingdoesnotenlightenreaderstounderstandbasickeyconcepts.

(6)Acritiqueofsuchworkswouldbelongandtedious.OneofthemostrecentexamplesofsuchwritingisDograandDogra(2000).Ihaveusedonlysomeelementsfromsuchstudies,asindicatedinthereferenceslater.

(7)Stein(1998:52–3)pointstotheroleofAgniaschiefpriestinHindumarriagerituals.Inthepresentcontext,itwouldbeusefultoperceivethis‘firegod’astheṛticlinkforaHindumarriage,makingtheroleofthestateredundant.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


(8)Intheextreme,itispossibletoidentifyapotential‘zero-ritual’astheacceptedcustomarypattern,forexample,fortheremarriageofaHinduwidow(Menski2001:20–4).

(9)Bumiller(1991:25)emphasizesthecostsofweddings:‘InIndia,aweddingisachaoticpageantthatcanlastuntilsixinthemorning,andmoreandmorehasbecomeapublicvalidationofafamily’sstatusandwealth.Ifafamilyisrich,itisnotunusualtohaveathousandguests.Evenaworking-classfamilywillputonafeastfortwohundred,ensuringcripplingdebtforthenextdecade’.

(10)Thisisaslightlyyoungertext,stillbelongingtothepre-classicalVedicperiod,andthusdateabletoaround1000BCorpossiblylater.

(11)Thisisinessence,asthenamesays,aritualinvolvingsevensteps,buttherearesomanyvariationsofit,andsuchamazingdistortionsoftheoryandpractice,thatawholebookcouldbewrittenjustonthattopic.Somerelevantdetailsarediscussedlater.

(12)Chatterjeeetal.(1971:58)alsoobservethatmarriageisauniversalphenomenoninSouthAsia.

(13)Nair(1978:2)arguesthattheuniversalityofmarriageamongtheloweststrataofHindusocietyisalsoexemplifiedbythemarriageofprostitutestomockhusbandsbeforeinitiationintotheirprofession.

(14)WherethisleavestheShudrasisanimportantquestionthatisnotproperlyaddressedintheliterature,whichhasanobviousSanskriticbias.Iamlessthanimpressedwiththetraditionalmodelofthe‘eightformsofmarriage’,inwhichtheworstmethodsofgettingmarried(byrapeandpillage,itseems)aresimplyallocatedtoShudras,asthoughtheyknewnothingelse.TheprevalenceoflocalandcastecustomsofmarriageinsuchcommunitieswasconfirmedbytheSupremeCourtofIndiainM.GovindarajuvK.MunisamiGounderAIR1997SC10.AnotherrecentcasestressingthevalueoforalevidenceaboutaHindumarriageisRajanBaboovUPPublicServiceCommission(1998)8SCC580.

(15)FeministinterpretationsoftenforgetthepressureonHindumeninthisrespectandbehaveasthoughonlywomenwereundersuchcompulsions.Theancientliteraryevidenceonthisisclearandstrong,becausethe‘fashion’amongmenofbypassingthestagesoflifeandbecomingarenounceronanaccelerated‘routetosalvation’(mokṣa)wasperceivedtothreatenthefutureofsocietyasawhole.TheworkofPatrickOlivelle(1993)ismostrelevantinthisregard,asisSprockhoff(1976)onthewiderphenomenonanditsphilosophicalrepresentations.

(16)Weinberger-Thomas(1999:128)emphasizesthecentralroleofHindumarriage(andofwomen)inRajasthanisocietytoday,showinghowthislinkstoconceptsofthe‘idealwife’.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


(17)Forsomemisguidedpositivisteffortsto‘laydownthelaw’,seefurtherlater.

(18)Inourtime,theaimmaybetopreventtheabuseoftraditionandtoincreasepublicawarenessofthesignificanceoftheHindumarriagerituals.AninterestingrecentexamplecomesfromSouthAfrica,underthetitleof‘Vedicweddingceremony’(Vaidikvivāhavidhi),compiledbyRambilass(2001).DograandDogra(2000)aimtoprovideageneralguidebookformodernreaders,butareoftentooprescriptiveonritualdetails,whilealsomakingsomeeffortstoemphasizeplurality.

(19)SeePandey(1969:153);Shastri(1990:31).

(20)Seee.g.Derrett(1963c:137–8);Variar(1985:19).OnHindumarriageceremonies,seeDesai(1998:663–4).

(21)InmodernIndia,Bumiller(1991:36)observedwhatlookslikeapropertraditionalsaptapadīritual:‘Thecoupletooksevensteps,eachonerepresentingablessing:food,strength,wealth,happiness,progeny,cattleanddevotion.Aftertheseventhstep,themarriagewasirrevocable.Thepriestsprinkledholywateronthecouple’.

(22)Inthecontextofdowry,Bumiller(1991:112)statesthatanunmarriedwomaninruralIndiawouldhavebeenshunnedfortherestofherlife,hencethereishugepressureontheparentstoarrangeforhermarriage.

(23)ForsomedetailsonthefascinatingcaselawaboutthisquestioninpostindependenceIndia,seeAgnes(2000:84–5),whonotesachangeinfavourofwomen’sperspectivesfromabout1975onwards.Argumentsthatwomenhavenorightsinthisfieldoverlookvarioustraditionalpatternsofpost-maritalresidenceinwhichthehusband,oftenforsoundeconomicreasons,agreestomovetothewife’sfamilyandworkswith(andoftenfor)them.

(24)Derrett(1968b:558)rightlywarnedthat‘[t]hedifferencesbetweenHinduismandChristianityandIslamasknowninIndiahavebeenexaggerated’.

(25)AccordingtoDerrett(1968b:89),Manudevelopedtheone-fleshdoctrineofmarriage.

(26)Thelanguageofthisauthorreflectstosomeextentthatthiswasoriginallywrittenin1918.

(27)SeeinparticularPandey(1969:158–170).AlsousefulareNair(1978:16);Mitra(1965:30–43);Sharma(1993:21–32)andDesai(1998:651–53).Derrett(1963c:147)writesthatitusedtobeimportanttoknowinwhatformawomanwasmarried,butdoesnotgointodetailonthispoint.

(28)However,thisisnotcorrect,sinceSection7(1)specifies‘eitherparty’,notboth.

(29)Atleastnineeditionsofthisbookhaveappeared.SeeDiwanandDiwan(1993)and

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


theirlaterworksunderdifferenttitles.

(30)InCh.8.3later,wereturntothequestionofessentialceremoniesunderthemodernHindulaw.ItwillbecomeapparenttherethatDiwan’sobfuscatingstanceactuallyprotectedHindupolygamistsfromcriminalprosecutions(seeCh.10),whichmaybetakenasevidenceofcollusionamongmalelawyers.

(31)Inthiscase,Rukhmabai(whohadbeenmarriedattheageofeleven)opposedthelegalclaimofherhusbandtorestitutionofconjugalrightselevenyearsafterthemarriage.TheBritishIndiancourtsultimatelyheldthattheHinduhusbandwasentitledtothecompanyofhiswife,butdidnotenforcethedecision.

(32)Theseeffortsweresociallynoteffective,asWeinberger-Thomas(1999:146)demonstrateswithreferencetoacaseinthe1920sfromRajasthan.

(33)TherewereearlierSatiRegulationsfrom1813onwards,asWeinberger-Thomas(1999)stresses.

(34)However,pre-1955caselawconfirmsthatrecognitionofcustomarypatternsremainedagraveproblem,asshowninDeivainiAchivChitambaramChettiarAIR1954Mad657.

(35)Minoritylaws,everywhere,areseentobeundersiege.WhileIndianMuslimlawisoftenportrayedasbeingthreatenedbymodernistreforms(Mahmood1986),inPakistanandBangladeshtheHindulawremainsanunwantedandunreformedcolonialrelic(seeMenskiandRahman1988forBangladesh).

(36)Mahmood(1981:4)writesthat‘[t]oday,Hindus,Buddhists,SikhsandJains—allfourcompendiouslyknownbythelegalterm“Hindu”—aretheproudpossessorofthemostprogressivemarriagelawofIndia…Therehasthusbeenarealupheaval…TheHindumarriagelaw…hastravelledalongwayfromwhereitstoodin1856’.TheAnandMarriageActof1909hadearlierlegalizedSikhmarriageritesknownasanandkaraj.

(37)OnsimilarpolicyaimsofnationbuildingforTanzaniaandtheirlimitedsocialimpact,seeMoore(1986).Jain(1990:601—2)showsthatadifferentstrategythanbringingthesegroupsunderHindulawwouldhavemadethemsubjecttotheseculargenerallaw.

(38)SeealsoDesai(1998:650),whichcreatesatotallegalfictionandisquitemisleadinginviewofthewordingofSection7oftheHMA,citedlater.

(39)InPartapSinghvUnionofIndiaAIR1985SC1695,aSikhDonQuixotemanagedtocomeallthewaytotheSupremeCourtofIndia,challengingtheclaimstoashareinthefamilypropertybyhisfather’stwowidows,tobetoldthathedefinitelycouldnotlawfullyasserthispatriarchalclaimstotheexclusionofthewomen.OnJainalaw,seeMenski(1993b).

(40)Onvariousaspectsoflegaldebatesrelatingtosocialnormsandtheextentoftheir

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


legalrecognition,seeKuppuswami(1986:43–54);DiwanandDiwan(1993:20–25and45–50);Desai(1998:85–8).

(41)InasubsequentsectiondealingwithpostmodernevolutionofHindumarriagelaw,anotherpassagefromtheconclusionsbythesamewriterwillbecitedtoshowthatheeventuallyreconsideredhissuggestions.

(42)Tiwari(1991:44)alsoarguesavidlyforregistrationofmarriage.SeealsoShams(1991).

(43)ThisisanoldissueindebatesaboutHindumarriagesolemnization;seeJain(1961)andMathur(1962).Derrett(1963c:137)notedthat‘theformationofintentionissomewhathandicappedinthemajorityofHinducommunities’becausemarriagestendtobearranged.

(44)ThecountryreportsinBainham(1998)confirmthatthereisnosuchinternationalagreementorsystem,andinlegalpracticemanyproblemsoccur.

(45)ThisargumentreliesonTowardsEquality(1974),whichappearstohaveinspiredalotofreformistwriting.Similarly,Singh(1989:65–6)claimsthatcompulsoryregistrationservesasaneffectivecheckonchildmarriageandpolygamyandoffersreliableproofofmarriage.

(46)Weinberger-Thomas(1999:188)reportsfromherfieldworkinRajasthanthat‘manyvillagersdonotknowtheirexactdateofbirth;andnotsomanyyearsago,theregistrationofbirthsanddeathswasregardedasaBritisheccentricity’.Inafootnotetothispointsheadds:‘Itisstillcommontodaynottoregisterbirthsanddeaths,afactthat1991censusproceduresacknowledge.Asformarriagesanddivorces,theseareneverregistered’(ibid.:264n.31).

(47)Pandey(1969:200)himselfstatesthathefollowedthefullermodeloftheAtharvavedasequence,butfromwhathetellsusaboutthegṛhyasūtras,itisevidentthatthereisnoonecustomaryortextualpattern.

(48)Inthecontextofsatirituals,Weinberger-Thomas(1999:141)findsasimilarpicture,arguing(muchmoreelegantlythanlawyers)that‘[t]raditionreinventsitselfbydrawingonthebric-a-bracofculturalartifactsathand’.

(49)Singh(1989:59)alsoindicatesthatthemajorconcernsrelatingtomarriagehavebeenpolygamyanditseffectiveabolition,ageofmarriage,compulsoryregistrationofmarriages,anddowry.

(50)TheimportantcaseofBabyvJayantMahadeoJagtapAIR1981Bom283reducedthisperiodtosometwentyyears,giventhatalargecommunityofpeople,inthiscaseneo-Buddhists,hadfollowedthose‘newcustoms’.

(51)TheeventualresultwastheHinduMarriage(MadrasAmendment)Actof1967,

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


whichmodifiesSection7oftheHMAforthestateofTamilNadu(thenMadras)only,insertinganewSection7-AafterSection7inthemainAct.FordetailsoftheoriginaltextseeMenski(2001:14–15).

(52)SuchcasesalsocomeupintheUKnowadays.Whileitisdifficulttodefendthepositionofcustominthisfield,someEnglishjudgesarewillingtorecognizethatHindulawmayhavedifferentmethodsofdealingwithmarriagesolemnizationcomparedtoEnglishlaw.

(53)Therelevantdetailsarefoundunderparagraph23atp.58ofthejudgment.

(54)AusefulauthorityforthispositionisSumitraDevivBhikhanChoudharyAIR1985SC765.

(55)Onemustbeconsciousofthefactthatthelanguagecouldalsobecriticizedasbeingtoopositivist.Isitreallythecasethatthemodernlawhasgrantedtraditionanewleaseoflife,ordoesthelawjusthavetoadmitdefeat?Thiswillalwaysremainacontestedissue.

(56)Aswesaw,Derrett(1957:276–7)earlierenvisagedvirtuallyunlimitedprogressforHindusocietyinthedirectionofmodernization,butlaterreconsideredhismodernistenthusiasm.

(57)Ondetailsregardingrenouncersandascetics,seeSprockhoff(1976);Olivelle(1993).

(58)TheDowryProhibitionActof1961,too,withaseriesofimportantamendmentsduringthe1980s,illustratesthatthethreatofstate-imposedlegalsanctionsalonedoesnotinducedesiredbehaviourinsociety.Ithasbeenestimatedthatmorethan25,000womendieorareseriouslymaimedinIndiaeveryyearasaresultofdowry-relateddomesticviolence,whileitisevidentthatattemptstocontrolthesocalleddowryproblemthroughthestate’slegalframeworkhaveremainedlargelyineffective.Onthisproblemanditsvariousdimensions,seeMenski(1998b).

(59)Banerjee(1984:281–2)speaksof‘ourmedievalinheritance’androundlycriticizes‘conservatives’likeWarrenHastingsandothersafterhimwhohadsuggestedthatIndiancivilizationwasdifferentfromEuropeancivilization,thoughnotnecessarilyinferior.Hisfinalconcludingparagraphatp.288roundlyandpompouslydismissesthenotionthatHindutraditionscontainanythingusefulforconstructingmoderndemocraticvaluesandsystems.Suchviewsarestronglyreflectedinmodernistfeministliterature(e.g.SarkarandButalia1995;Rajan1998).

(60)SeekingtoimproveonH.L.A.Hart’stheoreticalmodeloflaw,Tamanaha(2001)challengesthe‘mirrorthesis’oflawandsociety,andbeginstowriteabout‘order’asacoordinationofbehaviourinsociety,whichcomesratherclosetotheconceptofsadācāraintraditionalHindulaw(lastsectionofChapter3).

(61)Earlier,Derrett(1963c:139)hadarguedthatthissecularlawwasstillvirtuallyirrelevantinpractice.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


(62)Agnes(2000:244)reproducesthesamefiguresasPujariandKaushikfor1968–72andaddsstatisticsforregistrationundertheSMAinMumbaibetween1986and1996.Theyearlytotalsnevergobeyond2000registrations.

(63)EvidencefromfieldworkamongHindusinBritainconfirms,inaddition,thateveninalegalsystemthatofficiallyinsistsonregistrationofallmarriages,Hindus(andother‘ethnicminorities’)tendtogivemoreimportancetothesocio-religioussolemnizationofthemarriagethantotheformalregistrationwiththestate(fordetailsseeMenski1987;1991a;1993a).

(64)Significantevidenceofnon-registrationofmarriagesinEnglandisdiscussedbyAllott(1980:259–86).

(65)Agnes(2000:195–6)wronglyassumesthatPakistanhasreformeditstraditionalMuslimlawthroughmodernistlegislativeinterventionsbytheMuslimFamilyLawsOrdinancein1961.Inreality,thesearemerelyreformative‘paper’statementsthathavelittlepracticalimpact.Pakistanneitherrequirescompulsorymarriageregistrationnorhasitcontrolledpolygamyorabolishedthe‘tripletalaq’,asAgnes(2000:196)claims.SuchmistakesconfirmthatthereisanurgentneedforIndianlegalscholarshiponPakistantobeupdated.

(66)Intwoappendices,Agnes(2000:216–21)reprintsanddiscussestheDomesticViolencetoWomen(Prevention)Bill,1994,andtheMarriedWomen(ProtectionofRights)Bill,1994.Noneofthesebecameofficiallaw,theywereclearlytooradical,especiallyintermsoffinancialimplicationsformarriedmen.

(67)Agnes(2000:209)againoverstatestheEnglishinfluencewhensheclaimsthat‘allstatutorymatrimoniallawsinIndia,excepttheMuslimlaw,arebasedonEnglishlawsofmarriage’.SuchassumptionsseemtobeuncriticallycopiedfromBanerjee(1984).

(68)Inthiscontext,sheisextremelycriticalofthefactthatHindumenareabletoclaimmaintenancefromtheirwivesundercertainprovisionsoftheHMA1955.

(69)BibbevRamKaliAIR1982All248.InSurjitKaurvGarjaSinghAIR1994SC135,discussedfurtherlater,theSCdeprivedatwice-widowedSikhwomanofherdueshareonthegroundthatshewasnotvalidlymarriedunderHindulaw,eventhoughshealsoproducedamarriagecertificate.Fordetailsandacritique,seeMenski(1995band2001:33–5).

(70)Therelevantlegalprinciplehereisthatanaccusedshouldbepresumedinnocentuntilprovenguilty,sinceinacriminalprosecution,proof‘beyondreasonabledoubt’hastobeadduced.

(71)AninfluentialearlycaseonHinduwomen’smaintenanceisSoundarammalvSundaraMahalingaNadarAIR1980Mad294.After1985,thediscussionsabouttheShahBanocaseobviouslyhadanimpact,too.

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


(72)Forexample,thenormallyquitecomprehensiveAnnualSurveyofIndianLawfor1986doesnotmentionthiscase,anditwasalsooverlookedorpurposelyignoredbyothercommentators.DiwanandDiwan(1990:100–1)discussthiscaseinthecontextofmaintenance.

(73)Theheadnoteofthecaseonlymentionsmaintenance,sotime-pressedlawyerswouldnoteasilyfindthiscaseiftheywerelookingformaterialonmarriagesolemnization.

(74)Onthisparticularcommunityandtheagendaofitsleaders,seeSubramanian(1999).

(75)OnpresumptionofmarriageseeDesai(1990:639),aleadingpractitioners’handbook.

(76)NinguVithuBamanevSadashivNinguBamaneAIR1987Bom27recognizesapatmarriageasanapproved,customaryformofmarriageamongHindusinMaharashtraandfollowedanearliercasetothateffect.

(77)NarayananNamboodirivBhargaviAmma1989(1)KLT547explicitlyreliesonSumitraDeviAIR1985SC765holdingthatthecustomarylocalformofmarriageknowninKeralaassambandamwasfullyrecognizedbythelaw.

(78)ThecaseofS.P.S.BalasubramanyamvSutturayanAIR1994SC133arosefromMadras,butthatitselfshouldnothavemadeasignificantdifference.Inthiscase,remarkably,apresumptionofmarriagewasappliedbythesamejudgeswhorefuseditsoperationinSurjitKaur.

(79)InmodernEnglishlaw,‘cohabitation’hasbecomeincreasinglyequatedwithformalmarriage,atleastasfaraspropertyandsuccessionlaw,andtherightsofanychildrenareconcerned(Allott1980:259–86).MorerecentevidencefromEnglandshowsthatthestatewilleventuallyhavetograntformallegalrecognitiontoallkindsofmarriages(includingHindumarriages)whichdidnot,attheirinception,followtheprescribedlegalpattern.SeeGereisvYagoub[1997]1FLR854andparticularlyChiefAdjudicationOfficervBath2000[1]FLR8(CA),aSikhcaseinwhichthecouplehadmarriedonlyinagurudwarainLondonthirty-fiveyearsago,buttheEnglishCourtofAppealhadtorecognizethewidow’spensionclaims.

(80)MostmodernistswouldnownotventuretosuggestthatMuslimsshouldabandontheircontractofmarriagebeforeGod,thenikah,whilemembersofotherreligionsaresomehowstillexpectedtoshedtheirsocioculturalandreligioustraditionsmoreeasily.

(81)Indeed,AsiansinBritaindonot,withfewexceptions,followapatternofcohabitation.Ineffecttheyendup‘marryingtwice’(Menski1987;1991a;1993a).ForsimilarevidenceregardingMuslimsinBritain,seePearlandMenski(1998:73–7).

(82)CorbridgeandHarriss(2000:167)rightlypointtotheviolenceofcuttingprimaryeducationinIndiatothebone.Sowhereandhowwouldmoneyformarriageregistrationsystemsbefound?

Hindu Marriage Law

of 48


(83)Similarly,KishwarandVanita(1991:15)criticizethemisguidedmodernistassumptionthaturbanmodelshavebecomedominantfortheruralmassesofIndia,arguingthat‘inrealityitisthefamilystructureofthedominantpeasantcastesandtheirformsofpropertyorganizationthatactasthenorminIndia…MosturbancentresinIndiaarelikeislandsintimatelyinfluencedbythevastoceanofthecountryside’.

Accessbroughttoyouby: UniversityGrantsCommission

university press scholarship online oxford scholarship ......the solemnization of hindu marriages is...

Documents