On Monday, May 27, the Madhya Pradesh High Court made a significant observation regarding the validity of a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman under Islamic Law, ‘Sharia’. Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, while presiding over the case, stated that such a marriage would not be considered valid according to Islamic Law. The Court was hearing a plea from an interfaith couple seeking police protection to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Justice Ahluwalia noted that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman would be considered an irregular or ‘fasid’ marriage under Muslim personal law. The Court stated, “As per Mohammedan law, the marriage of a Muslim man with a woman, who is an idolatress or a fire-worshiper, is not a valid marriage. Even if the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act, the marriage would be no more a valid marriage and it would be an irregular (fasid) marriage.”
The couple, however, intended to marry under the Special Marriage Act, with neither the man nor the woman wishing to convert to the other’s religion. Their counsel argued that the Special Marriage Act would override personal law, making their inter-religious marriage valid under this Act.
“Marriage under Special Marriage Act would not legalise the marriage which otherwise is prohibited under personal law. Section 4 of Special Marriage Act provides that if the parties are not within prohibited relationship then only marriage can be performed,” the Court went on to hold.
Despite the couple’s wishes and the argument presented by their counsel, the Court dismissed their petition. The Court noted that neither the couple was willing to enter into a live-in relationship without being married, nor was the Hindu woman willing to convert to Islam.
“It is not the case of petitioners that in case if marriage is not performed, then they are still interested to live in live-in relationship. It is also not the case of petitioners that petitioner No1 would accept Muslim religion. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference,” the Court said.
Advocate Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay represented the inter-faith couple, while Government advocates KS Baghel and advocate Rahul Mishra represented the State and the woman’s father, respectively.
