(..1 A..)
MARRIAGE AND KINSHIP
[A] MARRIAGE
ESTION BANK Q.1. Define āmarriageā and āFamilyā. How are they interrelated? Q.2. Discuss the meaning and importance of marriage and family as social institutions. Q.3. Define marriage, family and kinship. Q.4. Write an essay on āEvolution of the institution of marriageā. Q.5. Explain the role of religious rituals and practices in moulding the rules relating to marital relations. Q.6. Explain the concept of āMarriageā. Annotate on Affinal and consanguineous kinship. Q.7. Write a detailed note on Religious rituals in Hindu, Muslim, Parsi and Christian Marriage. Q.8. Define marriage. Explain fully the forms and conditions of marriage. SHORT NOTES
|
SYNOPSIS
1. Monogamy:
A. Live-in Relationships & De Facto Marriages
B. Marriage Equality and Queer Rights
B. Landmark Precedents-
1. Bigamy & Conversion:
Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 635.
2. Live-In Relationships:
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600;
Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, (2015) 12 SCC 301.
3. Legitimacy of Children:
Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 737.
4. Right to Choose a Partner:
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 368.
5. Marriage Equality:
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348.
------------------------------------------------------
Marriage is a sacred, social, and legal bond between two individuals. While historically viewed through a strictly heterosexual lens, modern legal systems increasingly recognize it as a fundamental manifestation of personal liberty and autonomy. It is a stable, institutionalized relationship in which parties are legally permitted to cohabit, establish a household, and build a family. As an essential institution of humanity, marriage announces and formalizes the recognition of a new legal and social status within the community, signifying societal approval and invoking comprehensive legal protection for the family unit.
The definition of marriage varies across sociological, anthropological, and legal dimensions:
1. Edward Westermarck: Defines marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women which is recognized by custom or law and involves certain rights and duties both in the case of the parties entering the union and in the children born to it."
2. Jacob & Stern: Define marriage as "a term for the social relationship of husband and wife or of plural mates, also used for the ceremony of uniting marital partners."
3. George Lundberg: Considers marriage to consist of "the rules and regulations which define the rights, duties, and privileges of husband and wife, with respect to each other."
4. Dhirendra Nath Majumdar: Defines marriage as "a socially sanctioned union of male and female, or as a secondary institution devised by society to sanction the union and mating of male and female for: (a) establishing a household, (b) entering into sexual relations, (c) procreating, and (d) providing care for the offspring."
III. Forms of Marriage
The structural forms of marriage have evolved significantly across cultures and legal frameworks:
1. Monogamy: A form of marriage where an individual is legally permitted to have only one spouse at any given time. Under modern statutory frameworks in Indiaāsuch as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954āmonogamy is strictly enforced. Any subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid prior marriage is void and penalized as bigamy under applicable criminal statutes.
A. Live-in Relationships & De Facto Marriages
The Supreme Court of India has extended significant legal protections to long-term live-in relationships, treating them as unions "in the nature of marriage." Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, women in such relationships are entitled to claim maintenance and protection. Furthermore, children born of such unions are protected against the stigma of illegitimacy and possess statutory inheritance rights.
B. Marriage Equality and Queer Rights
In the landmark judgment Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court evaluated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples. While the Court held that creating a distinct legal status of marriage falls within the legislative domain of Parliament rather than the judiciary, it strongly affirmed the right of queer couples to cohabit, remain free from state or social violence, and access state-backed administrative benefits.
B. Landmark Precedents-
1. Bigamy & Conversion:
Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 635.
Facts-Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), converted to Islam and solemnized a second marriage with a Muslim woman, believing that converting to a polygamous religion legally protected him from bigamy charges.
Held: The Supreme Court held that a marriage solemnized under the HMA cannot be dissolved except on the grounds specified under that Act. A subsequent marriage after conversion without a prior legal divorce is void, and the husband remains liable for prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Live-In Relationships:
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600;
Facts: A well-known actress made public statements in an interview expressing liberal views regarding pre-marital sex and live-in relationships. Multiple criminal complaints were filed against her for allegedly hurting public morality and defaming traditional Indian cultural values.
Held: The Supreme Court quashed all criminal complaints, ruling that while mainstream orthodox society might disapprove, a man and a woman living together without marriage does not amount to a criminal offense. The Court firmly declared that cohabitation is a facet of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Dhannulal v. Ganeshram, (2015) 12 SCC 301.
Facts: A dispute arose over the inheritance of property, where one party challenged the right of a woman who had lived with a deceased man for over 20 years without a formal marriage ceremony, claiming she was merely a mistress and her children were illegitimate.
Held: The Supreme Court held that when a man and a woman live together continuously for a long period as husband and wife, the law raises a strong presumption in favor of a valid marriage. The burden of proof lies heavily on the party seeking to prove illegitimacy, and the woman was held entitled to inherit the property.
3. Legitimacy of Children:
Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Anr. v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 737.
Facts: A partition suit was filed concerning ancestral property. The respondents argued that the claimants were children born out of a live-in relationship rather than a formal marriage, and therefore had no legal right to a share in the joint family property.
Held: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that if a man and a woman cohabit for a long time, the law presumes a valid marriage. Consequently, children born out of such a prolonged relationship cannot be branded as illegitimate and are statutorily entitled to a share in ancestral and parental property.
4. Right to Choose a Partner:
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 368.
Facts: Hadiya, an adult woman, voluntarily converted to Islam and married Shafin Jahan. Her father filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court, alleging that his daughter had been brainwashed and subjected to forced radicalization. The High Court subsequently annulled the marriage.
Held: Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court ruled that an adult's freedom to choose their religion and partner is absolute and central to their identity. The Court emphasized that the right to marry a person of one's choice is an integral part of the Right to Privacy and Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. Marriage Equality:
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1348.
Facts: A batch of petitions was filed by queer couples seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage, arguing that the exclusion of non-heterosexual couples under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, violated their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination.
Held: A Five-Judge Constitution Bench unanimously recognized the right of queer individuals to seek partners and live free from state harassment. However, by a 3:2 majority, the Court held that there is no fundamental right to marry under the Constitution, and creating or modifying the statutory institution of marriage falls strictly under the legislative domain of Parliament.
*****