By Arshya Wahwa 

ABSTRACT

 This article explores the deep-seated patriarchy in Hindu marriages, where centuries-old rituals and religious texts still shape modern legal norms. For the longest time, marriage has been considered as a sacred bond to be maintained between a heterogeneous couple. Although, with the adoption of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and through various judicial developments, marriage has somewhat retained certain patriarchal and archaic characteristics, at the same time, there have been cohesive junctures when courts have made it incumbent to recognise and instil a feminist perspective in Hindu marriages. 

THE MARITAL PATRIARCHY: LEGAL HISTORY OF THE SACRED NATURE OF HINDU MARRIAGES

Since time immemorial, Hindu traditions have tied a sacrosanct meaning to marriage and  marital life. The union between a husband and wife in a traditional Hindu sense is connoted by a spiritual bond which the couple is expected to have throughout the institution of marriage. The relationship between the two sexes is considered to be complete after their marriage is solemnised. This solemnization of marriage is based on the religious texts and scriptures of Hinduism such as the Shastras and the Vedas. These scriptures consist of a conglomeration of certain religious rules which are to be performed as ceremonies, rituals, and customs. The purpose of having this socio-sacred nature attached to marriage was to conduct spiritual worship, procreate offsprings and for physical satisfaction. Hindu marriages take place in a Shastric ceremony, wherein the selection of a bridegroom by the father’s side of the family for the bride is done. Another ceremony performed, is a customary ceremony wherein the ceremonies are an outcome of local customs performed by particular groups within Hindus.  According to Hindu traditions and rituals, the idea of marriage is basically to contrive a structured form of a lifestyle. The aforesaid “structure” is important for the continuation of one’s lineage through controlling and limiting one’s sexual gratification within the bounds of marriage. In simpler words, the ultimate goal of marriage according to the traditional viewpoint is to procreate. Given the ulterior importance attached to religious dictates of marriage, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as HMA) recognizes these ceremonies and is built upon this social institution and traditional practice that has been going on since time began. Section 7 of the HMA lays down the ceremonies of marriage wherein Section 7(1) of HMA deals with the customary rites and ceremonies of parties and Section 7(2) of HMA makes Saptapadi complete the marriage after the seventh step has been taken. Although the current law does not provide for any specific marital duties based on gender, the archaic enforcement of the socio-sacredness of these marital rites through scriptures have seeped through the system as will be elaborated on further. These duties are more or less one sided, wherein they mean to elucidate upon the women their duties as a wife and a mother.  

The olden days have had unbalanced gender roles ascribed differently for men and women. In traditional Hindu households, the roles of women are usually reduced to a man’s daughter, wife, sister and so on. Since there are a plethora of religious texts that the Hindus rely on before sanctifying their marital unions, these texts lay down somewhat misogynistic views on how the duties of a wife and/or a mother are to be performed in order to lead a peaceful married life and maintain social order.

Further, the vows pronounced through Sanskrit shlokas during the marriage ceremonies by the couple at the helm of the priest’s instructions are usually focused on the duties of women to keep her husband and his side of the family satisfied. The most infamous one being the ‘release’ of a woman from her father’s protection and being given to her husband so that she can perform all her duties. It  is prescribed that along with ensuring her husband’s healthy life and an offspring in their eventual marital life (Vaivahika Homam), a woman’s good and tranquil character is reinforced through the rites (Agnisthapanam), and the duty of a woman to be the mistress of her husband’s house and act like a lady is also reinforced (Yoktra Bandham). Additionally, the bride’s sanctification also has to be done through pronouncing certain shlokas which indulge in purifying the maiden of her sins and faults at the hands of a Brahmin priest and placing a mangal sutra or a gold ornament on her body to show her devotion and loyalty to her husband and always watch over her man’s pious needs (Kanya Samskaram). Moreover, during the woman’s departure, certain shlokas are pronounced which reiterate how she must be her husband’s happy bridal possession. These are some general ceremonies according to the Vedic tradition which find their local practices according to different regions. As per the Atharvaveda, the duties of wife are mentioned wherein the wife is expected to consider her husband’s home as her permanent and matrimonial home and leave behind her maternal home completely. The wife’s activities seem to be heavily regulated as she is expected to take care of the household and kitchen. She is expected to be at her best behaviour, to pray for each person’s well-being in the household, to work hard for the members in the same domesticity  and must always please everyone.  This was a brief about the Vedas which were the scriptures of knowledge. Nonetheless, there existed legal texts called Smritis which formed the primary sources of the Hindu law we have today. One of the most important legal texts is the Manusmriti which laid down the importance of marriage and regulatory practices of women within the marriage. The Laws of Manu or the Manusmriti, in its ninth chapter, mentions some ridiculous practices and behavioural tendencies of a perfect ‘wife’ after marriage. It always puts forth the dependency of a woman on her husband. On top of that, the wife is considered as an employee of the husband wherein he earns, and she is supposed to prepare the food and take care of the household chores . Additionally, the wife is expected to be dutiful to the husband and the household, a form of a bonded labour existing to reproduce and convey her services to the household for the mere illusory protection of her husband, even as per the Srimad Bhagvatam.  It lays down the causes of ruin for a woman, unequal division of property and the stereotypical and inequitable  role of nurture being attached to women. 

Since the Vedas and Smritis form an integral understanding of the Hindu marriage laws and ceremonies in the present times, it automatically becomes relevant to get an in depth understanding of these sources to understand marriage as a whole. Since the HMA is gravely infused with and influenced by these archaic scriptures and legal texts that form the core of a Hindu way of life, the element of sanctity is inevitably attached to marriage. The religiosity of marriages had some duties prescribed to the parties getting married, particularly for women, as mentioned above. Unfortunately, these gendered roles have been subtly and directly been applied by courts in past judgements as well as fairly recent judgements. The socio-legal aspect of marriages which is now being viewed through the eyes of the courts and how marital duties are usually interpreted is disappointing, yet not shocking to say the least, considering their origins and continuing operations. 

COURTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE: IS TRADITION MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROGRESSION?

Time and again there has been immense importance attached to “marital obligations” by the Courts whenever there has been a legal dispute between parties. A few cases will be discussed wherein the courts have taken certain questionable decisions whilst delivering judgements regarding the aspect of conjugal responsibilities that parties in a marriage owe each other and the families involved. These reasonings by various courts would help us further understand the rationale behind the continued legality of the societal norms which have been formed through religious texts into the statutes we have currently. The social aspect was covered through the history behind the religious rules of Hindu marriages through sacred texts. However, the legal aspect also finds its place through the religiosity as established by these scriptures and legal texts before. The Act contains two provisions namely, Section 7 regarding ceremonies of marriage and Section 9 which is Restitution of Conjugal Rights. In the former, Section 7(1) recognizes customary rites and ceremonies that can solemnise a Hindu marriage. This particular provision does not define any rites per se, thus, the customs which have been followed according to the Vedas, Smritis and Shastras can be considered as Hindu customs that individuals indulge in to solemnise their marriage. Section 7(2) of HMA is Saptapadi, and its roots can be traced back to the scriptures from where it emerges. Section 9 of HMA mentions that restitution can be granted when either of the parties withdraw from the society without any reasonable cause. However, the aspect of “withdrawing from the society” does not have a set connotation and courts have been freely interpreting the provision according to contextual disputes that have arisen. The insertion of “marital obligations” has been made by courts with regards to conjugal rights and it has been observed that some of the rationales behind these obligations agreed upon by the courts is cultivated from the rationales provided in the antiquated scriptures (mostly the obligations laid for women, by men in power). Let’s analyse the reinforcement of such principles in some recent cases through certain orders and judgements of the Courts.

An order was obtained by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Juneja v. Sonia  in the favour of the appellant husband who pushed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife. The appeal was brought by the Appellant husband to the High Court after his divorce petition under Section 13(1)(b) of the HMA alleging cruelty by the Respondent wife was dismissed by the Family Court. The wife had moved from her matrimonial home after claiming distress being caused by her husband and his family towards her as he was allegedly abusing her and beating her. However, the husband asserted cruelty by his wife due to various acts on her part, those briefly being- her quarrelsome nature, lack of respect for elders in matrimonial home, not doing household work, spending his income on luxury items, insulting her husband’s family members, wishing to live separately from the parents of the husband and her frequent visits to her maternal home from where she refused to return after a point. The court conveniently disregarded the reasonings made by the wife by justifying that she had not proved her allegations with enough evidence. However, the conduct of the wife as portrayed by the husband is taken to be accounted as mental cruelty by her towards the husband and thus their marriage was dissolved. There are three broad assumptions that can be construed from the court’s understanding. Firstly, the court agreeing to the allegations made by the husband regarding the wife not doing the household chores and living separately from parents amounts to mental cruelty reinforces the patriarchal concepts of certain roles that a wife is expected to play in a marital home without questions. Secondly, the court disregarded the claims made by the wife regarding cruelty against her based on the lack of proof on her side. Nonetheless, the husband’s assertion of mental cruelty by her was considered by the court and her conduct of leaving the matrimonial home was unreasonable, with no requirement of evidence or proof from his side. Thirdly, and the most appalling justification which the court delivered in favour of the husband was regarding the obligation of the son in a Hindu society to live with his family even after marriage as he has a legal and moral obligation to take care of his parents. 

This observation was also cited in Narendra v. K. Meena as stated by Delhi High court. The court in this case believed that it is a pious obligation on the part of the son to maintain his parents and if the wife constrains the husband from doing so, it is torturous on her part. Ignoring the rationale given by the wife for her conduct and declaring her behaviour as whimsical for asking to live separately is not backed up by the court properly with a proper legal justification. Such fallacious assertions by the court not only render the societal ideologies regarding marriage orthodox, but also extremely unethical and regressive in the current times especially. Thus, she was denied conjugal rights as per Section 9 of HMA as it was assumed by her conduct that she had no intention of resuming the matrimonial relationship.

In the case of Dimple@Rani v. Ashok Rawat, the court recognized the institution of marriage as pious in nature. The married couple had started living separately shortly after the solemnization of their marriage, and thereafter the husband approached the court for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA. The wife was against the restitution initially but changed her mind later to not pursue the appeal; the husband assured the court that he would maintain her with respect and dignity. The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled in the favour of the husband by stating that a married couple is expected to live together with a sense of adjustment and co-existence. 

Thus, according to the court, for a happy married life, the couples must live together. This kind of adjudication refurbishes the patriarchal ideologies which brought about some unsaid marital rules stemming out of religious texts as mentioned previously. Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that a marriage can be happy only when the parties live under the same roof, however, the court’s interpretation of the same strengthens these archaic belief systems even today. The court’s finding of the husband and wife living under the same roof reinforced certain social conditionings even though the parties initially decided to stay apart. Ruling in the favour of the husband who claimed restitution of conjugal rights again impinges on the rights of the wife in this case creating an imbalance in which gender gets to choose the place of matrimonial home. Although the wife changed her mind later, the husband’s reassurances toward maintaining dignity in the household was given more priority, the wife’s initial wishes were partly unattended as the court laid undivided focus on the ‘piety’ of marital co-existence 

CONCLUSION

The sacred nature of Hindu marriages, deeply rooted in religious texts like the Vedas and Manusmriti, continues to influence the modern legal framework. While these texts sanctify marriage, they also perpetuate patriarchal structures that place one-sided obligations on women. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 codifies these traditional practices, reinforcing the sacrosanct and rigid expectations of gender roles within marriage. Judicial interpretations of sections such as Restitution of Conjugal Rights often reflect these entrenched beliefs, leading to verdicts that reinforce outdated norms. The cases discussed—Sunil Juneja v. Sonia  and Dimple@Rani v. Ashok Rawat—highlight the judiciary’s role in sustaining patriarchal ideologies. By legitimising expectations of a wife’s role in domestic duties and her moral obligation to cohabit, courts have, in some instances, dismissed the valid claims of women seeking justice within the institution of marriage. These rulings suggest that marital sanctity, when interpreted through antiquated lenses, can limit women’s autonomy and perpetuate systemic gender inequality.

However, the legal landscape is not entirely stagnant. As we will explore next, there have been progressive rulings that challenge these patriarchal norms, pushing towards a more equitable interpretation of marriage that prioritises individual autonomy and gender equality within the institution.

About the Author:

Arshya Wadhwa is a law student in her second year of LL.B (Hons.). She is an enthusiastic yoga practitioner, she loves to read, and she adores watching stand-up comedy.