High Court rejects Muslim woman’s plea on her ‘marriage’

She wanted the court to declare that she was not legally wedded to a Hindu

The Madras High Court Bench here has rejected the plea of a 25-year-old Muslim woman from Tirunelveli to declare that she was not the legally wedded wife of a Hindu who reportedly married her in March 2012 and also registered the ‘marriage’ at a Sub-Registrar’s office at Thirunavalur in Villupuram district.

Dismissing a civil revision petition preferred by M. Rahmath Begum (name changed), Justice V.M. Velumani held that the Tirunelveli Family Court had rightly refused to entertain a suit filed by the woman seeking such a declaration and there was no irregularity or illegality in the lower court’s order warranting interference by the High Court.

The judge said the petitioner had conceded to have been in love with the man. She had also eloped with him to Kerala in 2011 forcing her father to lodge an abduction complaint with the local police, besides filing a habeas corpus petition in the High Court Bench.

On being produced before the Bench on April 3, 2012, the petitioner had told two judges of the High Court that she got married to the man with whom she eloped and wanted to live with him.

Habeas corpus petition

The judges closed the HCP with an observation that the woman was free to choose her own way of life since she was a major. However, after four years, the woman approached the Family Court in January last year seeking a declaration that she was not the legally wedded wife of the person.

In her petition filed before the lower court, she claimed that no valid marriage had taken place between them. She claimed that the marriage invitation and other documents were forged to save the man’s family from being tortured by the police in the guise of investigating the abduction complaint lodged by her father.

Further, pointing out that marriages between inter-religious couple could be registered only under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the woman claimed that the procedures contemplated under the legislation were not followed in her case.

On the other hand, the respondent’s counsel, C. Karthik, contended that there was indeed a valid marriage between the couple and they had even begotten a baby girl. He claimed that the woman had filed the suit for declaration due to a misunderstanding with her “husband.”

Refusing to even number her case, the Family Court on January 29 last held that no such declaration could be made when she herself had conceded to have married the man before two judges of the High Court in 2012.