High Court: No Marriage Can Be Solemnized Between Parties Related To Each Other As ‘Sapinda’

The High Court has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties related to each other as sapinda i.e. cousins unless, it be mentioned in the tradition followed by the citizens marrying each other

Woman’s appeal against court’s decision

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that if the choice of partner in marriage is left unregulated, incestuous relationships may be legitimized.

The court rejected a PIL filed by a woman seeking repeal of this provision. She had challenged the order of the Family Court declaring the marriage between her and her distant cousin as void as per the said provision. Her appeal was rejected by a coordination bench in October last year.

The bench said that the woman had failed to show any ground to challenge the prohibition contained in the impugned provision and had also failed to show any legal ground to challenge the restriction imposed therein. The court said that the petition neither identifies the basis of the said restriction imposed by the state nor gives any solid legal basis to challenge the said section.

Also Read: High Court Directed Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena To Hear Out Private Unaided School Before Taking Over The Management

Woman’s customs had no mention of the same

The bench refused to accept the woman’s argument that the impugned section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the exception is only for marriages between persons based on custom with the force of law, which requires stringent proof. It exists and it should exist.

The petitioner has been unable to prove the existence of the custom in the facts of her case and has relied on parental consent which cannot take the place of custom. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the challenge to Section 5(v) of the HMA Act in the present writ petition.

The bench said that we are of the considered opinion that no reasonable ground in law has been placed before this Court during the pleadings or arguments in the petition to challenge the said impugned provision. However, the bench said that the woman would be free to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against her former husband before the appropriate forum as per law.