On February 14, 2006, the Supreme Court had directed all marriages in the country ought to be registered. But confusion prevailed over the court order since State and Union Territory Governments reported compliance under Hindu Marriage Act alone. The strict barriers of religion governing the custom of marriage and its registration rendered the Governments helpless to apply the court's decision uniformly.
|
|
The court order received mixed response from Muslim clerics. Maulana Khalid Rasheed, member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and head of Lucknow's oldest Islamic seminary Firangi Mahal, expressed reservations against the order.
|
|
"'I fail to understand why should such a need arise in case of a Muslim marriage where a nikahnama is a good enough recorded evidence of marriage,'" Rasheed asked.
|
|
"After all, the Shariat Application Act of 1937 clearly allows Muslims to carry out their marriages and other religious rituals in the manner prescribed under Islam; and no law is supposed to override that right," he said.
|
|
However, All India Muslim Personal Law Board spokesman Qasim Rasool Ilyas downplayed the court's order.
|
|
"Islam asks its followers to register the marriages and there is nothing new in the apex court directive," he said. He, however, added the word "compulsory" should not be made part of the legislation.
|
|
Making clear its previous order, the Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam said, "the States and Union Territories have to forthwith comply with the February 14, 2006 judgement and in no case later than three months from today." In doing so, the Bench asked the respective Governments to invite public response in framing rules providing for "consequences for non-registration of marriages."
|
|
The confusion had prevailed over the court's previous order since a host of laws govern marriages in the country. The latest order would now cover marriages under Special Marriage Act, Parsi Marriage Act, Christian Marriage Act, Foreign Marriage Act and the personal laws governing Muslim community as well.
|
|
The order initially was passed while dealing with a matrimonial dispute and amid criticism that a large number of spouses were involved in bigamous relationships in the absence of a proper mechanism to establish that a marriage indeed took place.
|
|
This loophole in law proved disadvantageous largely for women since they had no proof to defend their claim for maintenance and later to seek the custody of children born out of wedlock. After receiving suggestions from several quarters within the Government as also independent experts and organisations, the court accepted the suggestion of registration of marriages as a compulsory exercise. This was given a legal backing by passing of the order.
|
|
The bench felt that the purpose of this would be lost if the order would apply to Hindu marriages alone. For this purpose, the court regularly monitored the implementation of its order. States like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Tamil Nadu had not bothered to file their compliance report in the court when the matter came up for hearing in July this year.
|
|
On the previous date of hearing, the court even expressed its anxiety over the implementation of its order with regard to other religions, beside Hindus. "Why such rules cannot be made. Why not marriages in other religions be registered", the Bench said The court's anxiety was raised after senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, assisting the court as amicus curiae pointed out how States like West Bengal and Orissa had issued rules for registration of marriages in all religions. States of Assam, Bihar and Meghalaya too provided for registration of Muslim marriages.
|
|
The court had even invited suggestions from the National Commission for Women, which supported the court's decision for compulsory registration of marriages. A proposal to this effect had been pending action with the Government for the past 15 years.
|
|
The court had also sought response from the Centre with regard to framing of guidelines. Expressing its limitation to ensure implementation of the order, the Centre claimed that enacting legislation on this subject was squarely under the State jurisdiction.
|
|
Mixed response from Muslim clerics
|
|
AIMPL Board member Maulana Khalid Rasheed and head of Lucknow's oldest Islamic seminary Firangi Mahal express reservations against order
|
|
I fail to understand why should such a need arise in case of a Muslim marriage where a nikahnama is a good enough recorded evidence of marriage: Rasheed
|
|
AIMPLB spokesman Qasim Rasool Ilyas also downplays fresh order
|
|
|
|