Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 518

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Sarika Sen D/o Dadu Ram Sen - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Madhya Pradesh, Home (Police) Department, Through Its Secretary, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9589 of 2024
Decided On : 27-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri K.S. Baghel - Government Adv., Shri Rahul Mishra Adv.

Marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is considered irregular under personal law, impacting its validity under the Special Marriage Act.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of mandamus sought for police protection and to prevent registration of cases against petitioners from family objections regarding inter-religion marriage under Special Marriage Act - Key consideration is validity of marriage between different religions. (Para 2, 3, 12)

(B) Marriage Law - A marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is deemed irregular (fasid) and not valid (sahih) under Muslim law - The status of children from such marriages holds legitimacy despite irregularity. (Para 13)

(C) Special Marriage Act - Does not override personal laws where certain rituals are required for solemnization - Validity of marriage remains bound by personal law stipulations. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek protection for marriage registration amidst familial objections related to religion, citing eligibility under Special Marriage Act; opposition stems from familial societal consequences.

Findings of Court:
Court upheld that marriage between petitioners is irregular under Muslim law, denying writs for protection sought from scrutiny on familial complaint.

Issues: Was the marriage of the petitioners valid given differing religious backgrounds? Should protection be granted amidst familial objections?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled inter-religion marriages are irregular under personal laws; marriage must comply with both legal and social scrutiny.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition filed under article 226 for specific reliefs. (Para 1)
2. petitioners are in love and seek registration under special marriage act. (Para 2 , 6)
3. opposition based on theft and social boycott claims. (Para 3 , 14)
4. court considers the validity of the inter-religion marriage. (Para 4 , 5 , 12)
5. legal distinction between valid, irregular, and void marriages. (Para 9 , 10 , 13)
6. court dismisses the petition. (Para 16 , 17)

ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to provide the follow-up guard to the petitioners for appearing before the Marriage Registration Officer i.e. Addition Collector Anuppur in SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT Case fixed on 25.04.2024.

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to not registered any case against the petitioner No.2 in respect of kidnapping of petitioner No.1 or other related offences in the complaint made by the family members of the petitioner fo.1

iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may also is granted.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that petitioners are in love with each other. They have already approached the Marriage Officer under SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , however on account of objections raised by respondent No.5, they are not in a position to appear before the Marriage Officer. As a result, their marriage is not being registered. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, petitioners may be granted Police protection.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No.5. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 has left her house by taking jewellery of all the family members and has also taken away cash amount. It is further submitted that since the petitioner No.1 wants to perform an inter-religion marriage and in case if it takes place, then respondent No.5 and his family would be boycotted by the Society, therefore petitioners are not entitled for any protection.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Petitioners belong to different religions, therefore counsel for the petitioners was directed to address this Court as to whether marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 will be a valid marriage or not?

6. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since petitioners want to perform marriage under the SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT , therefore Nikah is not required. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have come to a consensus that petitioner No.1 shall continue to follow her Hindu religion, whereas petitioner No.2 shall continue to follow his Islam religion and nobody would interfere with religious feelings of each other. It is further submitted that there is no intention of petitioner No.1 to accept the Islam religion.

7. The next question for consideration is as to whether marriage of a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl would a valid marriage or not?

8. The aforesaid question is no more res integra.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Salim (D) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through LRs. & Ors. decided on 22/01/2019 in Civil Appeal No.5158/2013 has held as under:-

“Marriage (nikah) is defined to be a contract which has for its object the procreation and the legalizing of children.”

Thus it appears that a marriage according to Muslim law is not a sacrament but a civil contract. Essentials of a marriage are dealt with in § 252 at page 340 of Mulla (21st edition) as follows:

“It is essential to the validity of a marriage that there should be a proposal