Guardian or Saboteur? The State and the Right to Choice in Marriage

Authors

  • Prem Chowdhry

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/nnjlsr.v0i4.111089

Abstract

The failure of the judicial system to ensure effective protection of the right to choice in marriage, especially in the face of modern, equitable law, and /or collusion of state agencies in sabotaging this right, is assuming alarming and dangerous proportions. This paper argues that, although the introduction of modern concepts like adulthood and the sanctity of individual rights has legalised the individual settlement of marriage between two consenting heterosexual adults, the emphasis is missing on a dynamic liberal and progressive implementation of legal rights. Instead, their infringement is aided by acceptance of customary norms that empower the family or community to take marriage decisions on behalf of individual members. This paper analyses just two cases as representative of many involving runaway couples – one from the judicial records and the other based upon my field-work in Delhi-Haryana – to argue that legal intervention not only delegitimizes individual attempts to break out of the traditional system of marriage alliances, it also criminalises all such attempts. It highlights the pronounced gender bias against women as her consent is taken cognisance of, without recognising her right to consent or make individual choices. A mutual act is turned unilateral, condemning the woman and holding her responsible to the exclusion of the man, although contradictorily it still punishes him. A man who seeks to divest a guardian of his possession/control of his daughter is termed a rapist and a criminal. The punishment underlines an ideology of guardianship which also means total control of woman and her sexuality, not withstanding her adult status. The judgement delivered in such cases is premised on the view that moral and ethical grounds override questions of the legal and human rights of individuals. In such matters the state acts for and is used by casteist and patriarchal forces, as a primary legitimating institution of popular cultural practices. Standing as an overarching patriarch and acting on behalf of the male guardians of a woman the state criminalises female sexuality, constructing it as essentially transgressive, illegitimate and morally reprehensible. It denies the woman autonomy over her body or the agency to gain control of her life. Instead, it imposes an identity on her that is not her own. This collusion of the family, community and state ends in tragedy.

References

Agnes, Flavia, Gendered claims of citizenship and notions of honour and stigma’, in Sara Pilot and Lora Prabhu (eds) The Fear that Stalks: Gender based Violence in Public Spaces, New Delhi, Zuban, 2012, pp. 81-142.
--------, ‘Review of a decade of legislation, 1980-1989: protecting women against violence?’, Economic and Political Weekly, 25 Apr. 1992, Vol. XXVII, no. 7, pp. WS 19-WS 33
Balasaheb vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994, vol.100, Criminal Law Journal, 1994, Bombay High Court, pp. 3044-50.
Baxi,Pratiksha ‘Rape, Retribution, State: on whose bodies?’ Economic and Political Weekly, 1-7 Apr. 2000, vol. XXXV, no. 14, pp. 1196-1200.
Biswanath Mallick v. State of Orissa, Criminal Law Journal, 1995, vol. 101, pt. 2, , Orissa High Court, pp. 1416-19
Chakravarty, Uma, ‘From fathers to husbands: Of love, death and marriage in north India’, in
Lynn Welchman and Sara Hossain (eds) “Honour”: Crimes, Paradigms, and Violence against Women, London and New York, Zed Books, 2005, pp. 308-331.
Chowdhry, Prem, 2012, “Redeeming honour through violence: Unravelling the concept and its application”, in Sara Pilot and Lora Prabhu (eds) The Fear That Stalks: Gender based Violence in Public Places, New Delhi, Zubaan, 2012, pp. 197-237
-------- Contentious Marriages, Eloping Couples: Gender, Caste and Patriarchy in Northern India,
Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2007. 26 Dainik Jagran, Rohtak and Gurgaon, daily news paper in Hindi.
Das, Veena, ‘Sexual violence, discursive formations and the state’, Economic and Political Weekly, special number 1996, vol. XXXI, nos. 35-37, pp. 2411-23.
Desai, Sunderlal T., Mulla Principles of Hindu Law, Bombay; N.M. Tripathi Private Ltd., 13th edition, 1966.
Dogra, Chander Suta, Manoj and Babli: A Hate Story, Delhi, Penguin Books, 2013
Harmel Singh v. State of Haryana, Criminal Law Journal, 1972, vol. XII, Punjab and Haryana High Court, pp. 1648-50.
Hindu, New Delhi, daily newspaper in English. Hindustan Times, New Delhi, daily newspaper in English.
Hira Lal v. State of Haryana, Criminal Law Journal, 1994, vol. 100, Punjab and Haryana High Court, pp. 2471-73. Indian Express, New Delhi, daily news paper in English.
Jai Narain v. State of Haryana, Punjab Law Reporter, 1989, vol. LXXI, Punjab and Haryana High Court, pp. 688-94;
Menon. Nivedita, ‘Embodying the self: feminism, sexual violence and the law’, in Partha Chatterjee and Pradeep Jeganathan (eds) Subaltern Studies XI, Community, Gender and Violence, New Delhi, Permanent Black, 2000, pp. 66-105.
Menski, Werner F, Modern Indian Family Law, Surrey, UK, Curzon, 2001.
Mody, Perveez, ‘Love and the law’, Modern Asian Studies, Feb. 2002, vol. 36, prt. 1, pp. 223-56.
Punjab Law Reporter (PLR), 1989, vol. LXXI, Jai Narain v. State of Haryana, pp. 688-94; CLJ, 1994, vol. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Hira Lal v. State of Haryana, pp. 2471-73.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights, Courting Disaster: A Report on Inter-caste Marriages, Society and State, August 2003, Delhi, Secretary Peoples Union.
Ramanathan, Usha, ‘Images 1920-1950: Reasonable man, reasonable woman and reasonable expectations’, in Anita Dhanda and Archana Parashar (eds.) Engendering Law: Essays in honor of Lotika Sarkar, Lucknow, Eastern Book Co., 1999, pp. 1-32.
Rohtak District Gazetteer, 1910-A, Lahore, Civil and Military Gazette, 1911
Times of India, New Delhi, daily newspaper in English.
Uberoi, Patricia Family, Kinship and Marriage in India, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1994. pp.
----------- ‘When a marriage is not a marriage? Sex, sacrament and contract in Hindu marriage,’ in her edited work Social Reform, Sexuality and the State, New Delhi, Sage Publications, 1996, pp. 319-345.

Downloads

Published

2015-12-01

How to Cite

Chowdhry, P. (2015). Guardian or Saboteur? The State and the Right to Choice in Marriage. NAVEIÑ REET: Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research, (4), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.7146/nnjlsr.v0i4.111089