The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that a marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman is not valid under Muslim personal law, even if it is registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The court’s decision came as it dismissed a petition filed by an interfaith couple seeking police protection to register their marriage under the Act due to family opposition and concerns about societal backlash.
The couple, comprising a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, had expressed their desire to marry under the Special Marriage Act without converting to each other’s religion. They sought police protection to facilitate the registration of their marriage amidst threats from the woman’s family.
A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia emphasised Muslim law, such as marriage, would be deemed irregular due to religious differences between the partners. The court said, “As per Mahomedan law, the marriage of a Muslim boy with a girl who is an idolatress or a fire-worshipper 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.”
Advocate Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay represented the petitioners while Government Advocate KS Baghel appeared for the respondents
The court further elaborated that the Special Marriage Act permits marriages without religious rituals, it does not legalize unions prohibited under personal laws.
The Court added, “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 also referred to the Supreme Court precedent in Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen, reinforcing the view that the proposed marriage would be irregular under Muslim law.
In its final remarks, the court noted, ”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 No.1 would accept Muslim religion.”
Given the observations, that the couple neither agreed to a live-in relationship nor was the Hindu woman willing to convert to Islam. The petition was dismissed.
