The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently denied protection to an inter-faith couple, ruling that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman was invalid under Muslim Personal Law. 

The petitioners, who were in love, sought to marry under the Special Marriage Act. However, due to objections from their families, they were unable to appear before the Marriage Officer, resulting in their marriage not being registered. 

In this context, the couple sought, among other reliefs, protection to appear before the Marriage Officer on the date set for their marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act. The Court denied protection, stating that a marriage between a Hindu woman and a Muslim man would be irregular according to Muslim Personal Law. 

“As per Mahomedan law, the marriage of a Muslim boy with a girl 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.” Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia stated in the order passed on May 27. 

The Court examined whether a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman would be valid. It referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Mohammed Salim (D) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through LRs. & Ors., which discusses valid and invalid marriages under Muslim Personal Law. 

The Court noted that "Under personal law, performing certain rituals is necessary for the solemnisation of marriage. However, if a marriage is performed under the Special Marriage Act, it cannot be challenged for not performing these mandatory rituals. But, the Special Marriage Act does not legalise a marriage that is otherwise prohibited under personal law. Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act states that a marriage can only be performed if the parties are not within a prohibited relationship." 

The Court observed that the couple was neither willing to enter a live-in relationship nor was the wife willing to convert to her husband's religion. "The petitioners have not indicated that they are willing to be in a live-in relationship if the marriage is not performed. Additionally, the petitioners have not stated that petitioner No.1 would convert to Islam. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference," the Court stated. 

Image Source: India Today