Why marriage related offence is criminal?

@ Author,

 @ Author,A simple way to reply to your query without making it too academic is as below;

Issue - Indian Marriage are civil but offences related to marriage are criminal – why?


Because Marriage gives a "special status" to an individual and with special status certain "statutory rights and obligations to a marriage as per statutes" comes to play and they are all inter woven to a marriage irrespective of religious beliefs per se Indian marriages.

Marriage is a civil union between two individuals and it is not so that it is called that some criminal union is taking place in marriage between two opposite s*x individuals who have attained marriageable age as per 'majority age' Rules laid under civil laws of the land. But ignorance of law (be it civil and or criminal) are no excuse for any adult person be it married and or un-married person per se India. There are legal consequences of the "mistake or the offence relating to marriage" 'knowing or unknowingly' committed by married person(s) in civil societies.

But the moment knowing or unknowingly a offence is believed to have been committed to a marriage the "special status conferred as per public policies" onto a adult person gets disturbed then some Law has to be applied as remedial or societal and or punitive message and thus such Laws are classified under "offences related to marriage" and for punishment and or trial they are further sub-classified under Chapter XX and XX A of the IPC and then there has to be some procedure followed for trial of those offences and those trial procedures are well laid done in CrPC which colly. govern the married citizens of India.

Here one also need to understand simple definitions of offences and statutory rights of person charged with and they are summarised as to be;

1. Offence: Any Act or Omission punishable under Law

Offences are further sub-classified as;

2. Cognizable Offence - Non congnizable Offence:

In Cognizable Offence a Police Officer may arrest a person without warrant.

In non-Congnizable offence a Police Officer cannot arrest a person without warrant.

3. Bailable – Non-Bailable Offence:

1. BAILABLE OFFENCES

When any person accused for a bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail. In case of a bailable offence bail is a matter of right  If such officer or Court, thinks it fit such person maybe released on a personal bond without sureties. In case of bailable offence, one has to only file the bail bonds and no application is required.

2. NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES

In case a person is accused of a non-Bailable offence it is a matter of discretion of the court to grant or refuse bail and application has to be made in court to grant bail.

When a person accused of, or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session he may be released on bail on certain Conditions.

Now if above is clear to you then there shall not be confusion with marriage being civil and religion has no role to play for marriage related offences and it is like asking us does any religion world over ever says that people following his religion should compulsorily marry so that he escapes from 'duties vis-a-vis status in a marriage' and moreover no religion world over preaches that it is duty of its adult person (subject) to follow a religion so the question of 'religious duty' per se any nature of Indian marriages does not even arise to escape from self made faulty concept of some 'breach of duty' happening in first place! First tell us which religion that still exists in India compulsorily says to follow "religious duties". Now, if your que. is relating to Hindus then Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion at all. Even Islam does not say to follow compulsorily Islam and same is case of Christianity, Bahais, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis in Indian marriage context!

Also tell us where in HMA it clearly says marriage is a religious duty? Had it been so today every 18 and or 21 years old Hindu adult like late Sanjay Gandhi’s sterlisation drive of yore would have been compulsorily married off on the dot and then Indian's population would have entered Gunnies Book of Records thanks to your above fatwa of religious duty given to today’s Indian youths - kindly let late Sanjay Gandhi at least now rest in peace J

[PS.: Just as suggestion it is about time you shall join a LLB course to fathom beauty in Law indirectly conserve precious bandwiddths of the forum.]

thanks for your suggestion. if marriage is civil, why marriage related offence is criminal?  won't the offence be a civil one?

The relationship between husband and wife is based on mutual understanding, trust and sacrifice.  Both husband and wife should be willing to sacrifice for the other a few of their comforts.  Marriage is a religious relationship not a legal relationship.  If it is a legal relationship, then all components of marriage like which spouse has to go to the other's house (customarily wife goes to husband's house but in an official/legal relationship it can be defined, hence it is possible that even husband can go to wife's house as per terms of agreement), when to give birth to a child, what shall be done if one of the spouses gets transfer of job to a distant place....etc..will be well defined.  If it is not defined, that means, it is not a legal relationship, all these must be worked out based on mutual understanding and goodwill.

You cannot make (force) someone like the things that she cannot like, you cannot make (force) someone love if she has no love, you cannot make (force) someone sacrifice if she has no inclination to sacrifice.  In official relationships it is possible to "force" someone through an order to act in a certain manner in accordance with the order.  But marriage is not a formal or official relationship, here nobody is boss, nobody is servant.  Marriage is not enjoyment of rights using legal force, but sharing of duties with a religious mind. Hence invoking legal remedies to enforce rights is mere waste of time to save marriage.  One should have natural inclination to love and sacrifice for the spouse or at least a religious mind to honor the obligations treating them as bounden duties in a marital relationship.  In the absence of both of these, the relationship is likely to break and fail. 

One can only demand for their "Right" in official and legal relationships.  In family and marital relationships there is nothing called "right".  People can only be reminded of their duties, it is waste of time and lungpower to talk about rights with a non-cooperating opponent.  And there is no joy in relationship even if we by hook or crook are able to enforce our rights on the non-cooperating opponent, because she will be obeying, accepting us against her will.

Marriage is part of Hindu way of life.  It is aimed at inculcating the values of patience, sacrifice, love and affection in the life-partners.  Hence the question if what if the other person does not love does not arise.  Which means only if he/she loves I will remain in relationship is not a religious argument, it is only a legal argument.  The religious argument is, "when the aim of marriage is inculcating the values of love, patience and sacrifice what is the point in saying the spouse lacks it and hence I will quit marital relationship?".

Now coming to the question of why breach of religious duty becomes a criminal offense.  As long as one involves in marriage with a "religious mind" assuming that it is a relationship involving sharing of duties, not enforcement of one's right over the other it remains a civil offense.  If there is any difference of opinion, husband or wife goes away from the other without behaving like animals quarrelling or using brute force against the other.  But not all people involve in a marital relationship with a "religious mind".

There are degrees of reaction in human beings to same action.  The wife says, "you are an idiot".  One husband laughs it off taking it easy.  Some other husband is hurt, but decent enough to go away without reacting.   Some other husband will get angry and abuse his wife.  Some other husband will beat her up out of anger.  All people do not react in similar manner. 

So when the reaction involves usage of brute force to subdue the other, it becomes a criminal offence.  Till then it only remains a civil offence. 

There are "some kind of people" who enjoy "pleasure" when their "rights are enforced" and the opponent party is "compelled" to act in the manner that they wish them to act.  The treat it as victory over their spouse, "Hey look! I could compel you to do the things for me despite your best efforts to avoid" and be pleased about their victory. For me personally that is cruelty.  But legally that is only enforcement of one's right.

When I say, "And there is no joy in relationship even if we by hook or crook are able to enforce our rights on the non-cooperating opponent, because she will be obeying, accepting us against her will.", it is with respect to soft, humble and religious persons.  But there are also persons who possess animal propensities because of the force of which they tend to "enjoy pleasure" when they could "compel their life partner to do something that he/she does not like to do" in the process of enforcing their rights.   I do not have anything to say about them.

Brother @ lawyer

1. In a civil marriage husband and his sides burns a bride - tell yourself what civil remedy you propose to victim family in this civil marriage J

Will paying Rs. 200 civil fine by accused husband / his side of family suffice the offence committed thy name oh marriages are civil !!!!


Or will a verdict to parade naked husband and his side for 10 minutes in public a better civil remedy which suffices the offence committed thy name oh marriages are civil !!!!

2. In a civil marriage husband and his sides mentally tortures a bride and her natal home members for bringing insufficient dowry per se - tell yourself what civil remedy you propose to victim family in this civil marriageJ


Will asking to pay full dowry now to victim family suffice the offence committed thy name oh marriages are civil J  


Or bringing out a commemorative Postal Stamp of husband / his side of family to commemorate offence of mental cruelty committed by him / his side suffice thy name oh marriages are civil !!!!

3.  In a civil marriage husband and his sides kills a female child - tell yourself what civil remedy you propose to victim family in this civil marriage J

Will asking to pay for ultrasound charges now to victim family suffice the offence committed thy name oh marriages are civil J  


Or confirming City / Town Ratna commemoration to husband / his side of family to commemorate offence of female infanticide committed by him / his side suffice thy name oh marriages are civil !!!!

and or do you have better civil remedy on some of the above illustrations as proposal to put before Legislatures and I assure you next time I and or people known to me are invited before Parliament Committee on marriage laws reforms I/we will carry printout from a so called 'corporate lawyer' for making it as a Law (Amendment)

Now I have parting question to you and the question is tell us which all law subjects you studied and name of Institution to become a corporate lawyer ? Be honest for a moment bze this time you cleverly omitted  ‘religion’ and answering 'tell us where in HMA it clearly says marriage is a religious duty' before asking the above second question.
Reason I ask the question is that you seems to have never studied about “offence” which has usage in all sorts of matters related to social institution called marriage.


You need to understand that civil institutions and rights in this country come before anyone's belief in any "GOD" or in any doctrine. This country is primarily based on politics not religion. What is making you believe that religion/religions run this country? Religion doesn't run a damn thing. You have the freedom to choose and practice religion but the government is strictly about politics. Marriage is a civil institution that gives religious and non-religious people the option of having a religious ceremony as per Act be it HMA, IDA and or SMA etc. for a further simple reason these Acts have allowed via Amendments till date for divorce as well as widow re-marriage and had religion been strictly followed in these Acts then these two are strictly banned and not spoken about as per religion and if we are talking specifically about Hindu Marriage Act being religious Act further being sacrosanct then is it so today think aloud and wake-up HELLO!!

Wish people know the difference between “Official” and “personal” relationships.  Marriage is a personal relationship.   You take someone on job.  You gave advertisement in newspaper that such person should have such and such qualification, he/she needs to have so much of experience in handling job situations etc.  When that person is selected for job and during the course of job if he/she makes a mistake you will complain against him saying “you don’t know how to work”.  Despite having experience he/she is making mistakes. So complaint makes sense.

Marriage is a practice of Hindu way of life, it is aimed at developing some virtues in the process of following Ashrama Vyavastha prescribed by religion.  It is like gaining certain competencies during a training program, though the word we use in marriage is “virtues” not “competencies”.  The role that husband and wife play is not a “fixed official role” with “already gained skills and competencies” nor it is not a job responsibility of one towards the other.

So during the course of marriage a husband cannot complain that his wife does not know how to satisfy him in s*x inviting a response “I don’t have prior experience, if you wanted you could have chosen a TRAINED WIFE for this job”.

Section 5 (ii) of the HMA insist on consent of the spouses and implies a civil contract within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act, which speak about acts forbidden by law. Now child marriage is forbidden under Hindu law as per section 18 (a) read with section 5 (iii). Nowhere it is mentioned as punishable in the Indian Penal Code except under the Child marriage restraint act  1929  and the analogous laws under section 18 (a) of the HMA.  The same is with section 17 of the HMA which again provides section 494 and 495 and also 498a of the IPC, and such provisions does not exist in other personal laws, say for example the Islam or even in case of my own personal laws but the Hindu laws says so.

Maybe this can be answered in the famous words of Sir Lionel Fox, an acclaimed penologist of 20^th Century England quotes the example of an 18^th Century Judge who passed sentence of death saying “you are to be hanged not because you have stolen a sheep, but in order that others may not steal” In fine the need of the hour is to have a Uniform Civil Code.

Again that Section 5 of the HMA says "A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus" Now what does it mean by "any two hindus" it means any two males or betwen two females.But the hindus says, it only means one male and one female and not between two males or between two females, and it sounds like  importing a fiction in the statues, though the language of the statues is very clear, that is between any two Hindus? So it is what the Hindus says and civil become criminal.I hope the matter is clear.

I do not mind at all if marriage becomes a non-religious civil institution totally within the ambit of law of land.  Let the services rendered by husband to wife or wife to husband become part of Consumer Protection Act and if there is deficiency in one's service to other let the other challenge it under Consumer Protection Act also.  What I object is "it is not the duty of religion, culture and traditions to shape up the personality of people to marry" if marriage is a job to perform.

For a job, experienced people are chosen.  If marriage is to be treated as a job to perform, not a religious practise, how many men would prefer marrying divorced women? Here in marriage we want only freshers.  We don't want "second hand goods and services" at all. Knowing fully well that the fresher has no experience,  we want them to behave and peform duties like experienced people.  We want to break the seal first of the product and later certify this is not a good product to use.  If marriage is so official for men and it is to be treated as a civil institution coming more within the ambit of law, and religion has no role to play in it, why don't you make it a legal contract completely?  Why fall back upon religion again to shape up the personalities of people and later harrass those minds conditioned by religion, culture and traditions with official and legal mindsets?

a marriage related offence is same to the society  with that of a a sick child catching measles amongst a class of healthy children.

@ Utapala aka Ranee aka the other lady here


Uske liye 3-in-1 MMR Vaccine hai na J


Waisse bhi last dose child ke 10 yrs age taak dena chahiye and when we talk of society we assume we are talking of above 18 years populace not that of children(s)!

dear sir

let me answer your point if any.

now according to you every civil marriage husband burns wife, tortures wife mentally, kill female child, according to you these things cannot be civil, these things should be punished. well lets see:

1] burning bride is a murder. it is a criminal offence. it should be a criminal offence, there is no objection from my side.

2] mental torture is not so dangerous an offence that need criminal punishment. mental torture generally takes shape of qurral, which is very common in household all over the world. would you never engage in a verbal fight with your wife sir? mental torture is a sort of verbal fight. it is not physical at all. so i don't think it is just and fair to send a man for a 3 yr. jail  term for verbally fighting with his wife. a fine with divorce would work well in that case.

3] killing female foeticide is not possible if wife does not consent. she is carrying that fetal. if she does not consent, husband cannot remove that fetus also it depends on social and economic condition of the family. .for this, i don't think husband should be send to jail.

lastly i want to say that wife also sometimes kill husband, mentally torture husband and his family, kill female foeticide herself. why you do not admit that? why according to you it is always husband who tortures wife?

isn't your view a little one sided sir?

you don't know what this so called corporate lawyer can do for justice. marriage law should be amended and adultery, bygamy, and other marriage related crime except dowry death should be made civil.

i ask that first question that marriage in hma is religious, so that you admit it as civil contract. it is tricky question, often used for cross examination because once a witness admit something, he cannot later deny that.

according to me we should not study law blindly, rather evaluate law or to see if law is just or partial. if law is partial, unjust, then not only lawyers but also common people bound by the law should protest against it. i think sir you don't believe in such principle. i think that you are very inhuman, highly partial and carry some blind faith inside your mind which is not only unhealthy for society but also for your life too.

you behave like you are the knower of all law and no body knows anything. you may be. but you can't think or evaluate if the law is just or unjust. isn't our political leaders exploiting us through law? you can't think. you are just like a encyclopedia of law and such an encyclopedia cannot be a good lawyer because lawyers have to think.

you view is also one sided. you don't see two sides of the same coin. you fail to realize that women are as powerful as men, as abusive as men, women can do same thing as men do even worse. i have read in newspaper that mother throws her child from hospital room or mother try to kill or killed her child in hospital room. perhaps you never saw this or never want to admit these. there is no point of talking to you sir. you cannot be a lawyer no matter from where you get an llb degree. i don't want to know at all.

this country is not religious?????? i can't believe somebody in a lawyers forum can tell such a big lie. in india there is more religion than science. religious foundations, gurus , babas are getting more money than a scientific institution. satya sai gathered almost a huge mount of wealth than tata cancer research center. so i don't have to give more example of religiousness of india here. you can do a little research and see itself.

:D

read and think again...MMR= laws for women.

yes laws for woman that women can abuse. isn't it ranee?