The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a case of an interfaith marriage from Chhattisgarh, in which a Muslim man had purportedly converted to Hinduism so that the family of the woman he married would accept him, IANS reported. The woman’s family, however, claimed that the man’s conversion was a sham and that he had converted back to Islam.
“We are only concerned about her future,” a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra said. “We are not against inter-religious or inter-caste marriage.” The man should be a “loyal husband” and a “great lover”, the court said, according to IANS.
The lawyer, representing the woman’s father, said that it was a ploy to lure women into a racket. Therefore, the top court asked the man to submit an affidavit and prove that he had no intention to deceive. The bench also asked the man if her had changed his name legally after the marriage in an Arya Samaj temple.
The case was first heard in the Supreme Court last year by a bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The court had ruled that the woman should go back to her parents on the basis of her wish to do so.
The counsel of the woman’s family, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, said that the woman was staying with her parents when “around 70 policemen came and took her away”, according to Bar and Bench. The matter was taken up by Chhattisgarh High Court, which said that the woman wanted to go with her husband.
The family challenged the High Court order after it allowed the couple to live together, News18 reported. The top court’s bench also said that it wanted to protect the couple’s interest, and said that live-in relationships were already acknowledged by the court so it wouldn’t examine that matter.
“It is also good if caste distinction is done away with people in so-called high caste and low caste should marry each other,” the bench noted, according to News18. “That is even better. They are good for socialism.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the state of Chhatisgarh, referred to the top court’s judgement in the Hadiya case, but the bench reiterated that it was only concerned about the woman’s future. The bench asked for a reply from the man, the state government and allowed an intervention application from the woman.
Now, follow and debate the day’s most significant stories on Scroll Exchange.