If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Justice B D Ahmed disposed of a petition filed by Umme Salma Ahmed from UP, challenging the Marriage Officer’s order rejecting her application for registration of marriage under the special act on the ground that the couple had concealed that fact that they were married under the Muslim Act.
The court observed that the petitioner had wrongly invoked the provisions of Chapter II of the Special Marriage Act, which relates to the solemnisation of marriages. “The couple should have invoked Chapter III, which relates to the registration of marriage celebrated in other form,” Justice Ahmed added in his order.
“All the required conditions are admittedly fulfilled in this case and marriage can be registered under the Special Marriage Act,” he observed [source].
As Phoebe would say it, my eyes! my eyes!! Look at the all the complicated terms they use to describe a simple act of a man and a woman deciding to stay together. Why would the government care if there is an age difference between the bride and the groom and at what age difference is the ‘Special Marriage Act’ implemented? Or was it because the groom was a British national?
Beneath all that legalese is the government’s utmost need to even monitor relationships which of course would be greatly simplified under the Uniform Civil Code but then we wouldn’t be considered secular, would we? Bah! And aren’t all marriages considered special *insert romantic misty dreams of marriage* except of course, by those who are married for more than a year. What does the court tell the couples that do not fall under the Special Marriage Act? Go stand in the Ordinary Marriage line, you aren’t special.
‘Solemnisation of marriages’ - no wonder people run away from trying to get married. Anyone who has seen an Indian wedding knows that it is anything but solemn. Of course, I am referring to those ‘jhoote lelo paise dedo’ weddings popularized by Yash Chopra and co. Except for that ’saavdhan saavdhan’ warning bells in Maharashtrian weddings. Currently there is only one documented case of a guy heeding to that warning although ‘running away’ can make you rich. But even the Maharashtrian weddings nowadays have ’sangeet’ and trust me, it is a pathetic sight having recently seen a cousin’s version on DVD. But what the heck, we just might have one too. No better chance to see others make a fool of themselves while celebrating I being made one, right?
by Patrix | on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am | 
India, Law, Society Culture . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:05 pm reply
Hey my brother’s wedding had a Sangeet too. But that was the North Indian part of my heritage and having to many bleedy musicians in the family.
And please put the vid of your sangeet online, puhleaze!! Will substitute for the Sanjaya vids :P
May 31st, 2007 at 3:40 pm reply
Sakshi, at least you had a ‘North Indian heritage’. My cuz’s only connection to North India may have been a one-time visit to Delhi :) And yeah, I’ll put up any video as long as it isn’t of me dancing.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm reply
Ah ’saavdhan saavdhan’, one should heed that. In south indian weddings i think there is the ‘kashi yatra’ thingie. Wonder why there is no suce ritual for the femme. I would have probabaly bolted hmmm. Thats probabaly the reason they make the varmalas so heavy as well..you can barely lift your head and thus, can pretend you are somewhere else until its too late to run.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:27 pm reply
Cynic, given the cliched opinion of men being trapped in a marriage and made bereft of their independence, I really think the saavdhan saavdhan is meant for the groom while the bride is already sharpening her claws underneath the gunghaat at the thought of enslaving the poor man.