Deepak, still it is good to have discussion among ourselves before arriving at any firm opinion. Individually, I wont mind to be influenced by any brother, including the younger ones, if they are able to convince me by their logical arguments. We are human beings, always in the learning process, and should learn from each other. No one would like to go against one's community but on some particular issue we may not be able to reach consensus and it is natural.
Jakharji,
I can probably only repeat myself.
The HMA is very much generic. I am yet to see a clause codifying customs of any particular community, which is what we are asking for. Usually, restrictions in law are generic in nature, while exceptions are specific. The exception in HMA is to ensure that law doesn't tinker with already existing customs. I had asked earlier, how is the current law tinkering with our custom? Where does it say that following these customs is wrong or punishable under law?
The law is already respecting the customs by not tinkering with them. I am not sure what discrimination you are talking about. What rights don't we have that anyone else has? Right to follow our customs is very much there. It is upto the people to use that right.
Jakharji,
I can probably only repeat myself.
The HMA is very much generic. I am yet to see a clause codifying customs of any particular community, which is what we are asking for. Usually, restrictions in law are generic in nature, while exceptions are specific. The exception in HMA is to ensure that law doesn't tinker with already existing customs. I had asked earlier, how is the current law tinkering with our custom? Where does it say that following these customs is wrong or punishable under law?
The law is already respecting the customs by not tinkering with them. I am not sure what discrimination you are talking about. What rights don't we have that anyone else has? Right to follow our customs is very much there. It is upto the people to use that right.
when the custom is prevalent in the community. It is much different from making a marriage illegal when it conflicts with a custom. That is the only way out, when you are making a generic law that does NOT HURT anyone.
Taken from kapil Dalal's post above.
Marrying in same gotra and same village hurts the custom of Jats and these kind of marriages can be legalized under HMA so HMA is hurting Jat customs and that is the exact reason why a demand for amendment is being raised.
Kapil, although in each and every section of HMA there is phrase 'if customs allowed for the same" and so on.Even there is section 29 saving clause for the same. But
Is court accepting our this customs not to marry in same gotra which is supposed to be exist at large in almost all communities in North India. Is in any of judgment the court have accepted our this custom, if not then is law not tinkering with our custom by declaring same gotra marriage valid.
there are exceptions as well as restriction in law.If court exempt a custom then why it can not restrict, Is spinda relations, prohibitory relations are not restriction in HMA for solemnization of marriage even those which are condition not restriction for the same.
Is our this custom has been recognized by law or by any court to have a force of law.
Kapil, although in each and every section of HMA there is phrase 'if customs allowed for the same" and so on.Even there is section 29 saving clause for the same. But
Is court accepting our this customs not to marry in same gotra which is supposed to be exist at large in almost all communities in North India. Is in any of judgment the court have accepted our this custom, if not then is law not tinkering with our custom by declaring same gotra marriage valid.
Kapil Ji,
First of all, being very much generic and being generic are different expressions. Be specific, is it generic or not? Words like "seems", "very much", "looks like" "feels like" do not have clear expression and are used by people who want to be politically correct as I said in the other post.
Secondly, when HMA can accommodate one community's customs then why not others'? It should not matter if its a restriction or exception because it will be according the custom.
Just to remind you AGAIN though, your proposal targets two of the rarest breaches- own gotra and mother's gotra. It doesn't target the breaches that are more common and also not in sync with customs. Plus, those who don't have respect for the strictest of Jats customs, are not going to get deterred by the law. They would still have the option to convert and solemnize their marriage. What would you do then?
That is what community wants because court is saying that marriage is legal which is actually illigal as per our customes. Court is now opposing comunity on name of law so what community wants is to change the according to customes.Please show me a case where the court said that the marriage as per Jat customs was illegal. Or where the court expressed an opinion or passed a judgment that said that not marrying in same gotra is an illegal practise. If there is no such judgment, then court/law is not tinkering with our customs. It is not the job of the court to enforce the customs.
Feel free to get the amendment passed by the legislature, in which case court would be stepping in to enforce the customs. Just to remind you AGAIN though, your proposal targets two of the rarest breaches- own gotra and mother's gotra. It doesn't target the breaches that are more common and also not in sync with customs. Plus, those who don't have respect for the strictest of Jats customs, are not going to get deterred by the law. They would still have the option to convert and solemnize their marriage. What would you do then?
Jakharji, excuse me for not being able to express myself properly. It IS generic in my opinion, I don't have any ifs and buts in my mind about this. I have answered the next question, to the best of my ability, quite a few times. What's the point of repeating it over and again? If the purpose of HMA is to let everyone practise their customs, then the concept of restriction and exception matters. The court doesn't go around enforcing customs of any community. Following customs is voluntary.
From my point of view, it is not generic as it specially recognizes one community's customs but not other's so it can not be termed as generic. The given exceptions are provisions which are making it non-generic.
Instead of asking the same question to which I have the same answer, maybe you can attempt to answer these questions:
I had asked earlier, how is the current law tinkering with our custom? Where does it say that following these customs is wrong or punishable under law?
It is tinkering with our customs because it is legalizing marriages which are incestuous according our customs.
I am not sure what discrimination you are talking about. What rights don't we have that anyone else has? Right to follow our customs is very much there. It is upto the people to use that right.
It is discriminating because it recognizes one community's customs but not other's.
Agree that they will not be deterred as people do not deter while murdering someone, there is a law against murdering someone but they do not come out as well in public and boast that they have killed someone, violation of law will treat these offenders as criminals from both sides, the courts and the society and the law will have its effect when they are caught. Same will apply to this amendment in HMA.
Jakharji, you are again sidestepping the question. How will the law be violated if the same gotra couple convert to Islam before marriage? The court can't deem the conversion illegal given right to choose one's religion. I am genuinely curious about it as I think there are cases of conversions to avoid personal laws applicable to a particular religion.
That is what community wants because court is saying that marriage is legal which is actually illigal as per our customes. Court is now opposing comunity on name of law so what community wants is to change the according to customes.
What khaps are saying against couple is only either break the marriage or leave the village. Clash occurs where the couple says that this is a legal marriage and asks police protection and show that he himself is above society.
Manne to kar liya ar thare pe jo ho kar lyo. Fer log chori/chore ke gharkya ne bolte e saath keh de hain tham loga ke beech mein bole ho jiski chori gam ke gam mein muh kala kar rahi hai and next thing is Manoj Babli case.
Muslims also did not favour conversion for marriage only. Baaki Chand ar Anuradha bali ka case dekh e liya aasman pe baitha aadmi samaj mein kutta bana diya.
Khaps are still following the right path so that no such incidents occur and few lives could be saved. If such incident occur that they marry after conversion or in temple still in that case couple have two choices either run away from family/Village or sepration. In both cases atleast their lives will be little safer.
Mera ek sawl hai aap sabse
Kya Gotra ya Gaon mein Vivah karna koi Bahaduri ka kaam hai?
Please show me a case where the court said that the marriage as per Jat customs was illegal. Or where the court expressed an opinion or passed a judgment that said that not marrying in same gotra is an illegal practise. If there is no such judgment, then court/law is not tinkering with our customs. It is not the job of the court to enforce the customs.
They would still have the option to convert and solemnize their marriage. What would you do then? plese for reference or others see below judgement on conversation.
Ans-I have already given reference in one of my post ,of Suprem Court Jugde which invalidate the marriage after conversation.
The conversion for marriage purposes is not legal (not sure though) but I have read somewhere in this thread that actor Dharmendra still have a case pending against him in this matter. In Chand Mohamamd/Chandramohan case also, the muslim clerics declared it anti-islam.
If the couple declare that they are no more belong to Jat community/society then they can do what they want to do as Jat customs will not applied to them. They will not have any relations with Jat society and community.
Please let me know the specific legal clause that would deal with this. I doubt such a clause exists. Even if it does, it is difficult to prove in court whether conversion is for marriage or for attraction to the other religion. You are saying that if they declare (through conversion I presume) that they have nothing to do with Jat society, then the customs won't apply to them. How is it different when they are declaring the same through their actions? Why can't we just say they are not Jats anymore (like Parsis do)? It is always better to leave someone out of a group when he is not in sync with group's philosophy rather than forcing him to follow it grudgingly- he'd only cause more trouble within the group. And if lots of people are leaving the group (not the case right now, but this is what many are afraid of), then the group needs to introspect on its philosophy.
This is a pressure cooker situation. Rather than looking at the reasons for rising heat (more youngsters violating customs) and tackling them, we want to strengthen the steel (law). At some point, the cooker will just explode.
You are watching the only one side of the coin only execptions not restriction.A custom which followed by the people at large which is legal and valid ,if the same is declared illegal by Court is not tinkering with custom as in last years judgment by Kamini Lau, ADJ, Tis Hazari in which after much arguments this custom of same gotra marriage declared invalid and denied legal sanction of the same.
A court can not enforce a custom but can protect the same by discussion and taking evidence of its antiquity,continuty. Is these spinda relations, prohibitory relations are not traditional or customs.
They would still have the option to convert and solemnize their marriage. What would you do then? plese for reference or others
Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India4a married Hindu male converted in to Islam for the sake of solemninising another marriage as polygamy is permitted in Islam. The Hon’ble SC held that conversion in to another faith Ipso-facto does not dissolve the first marriage because no one is allowed to take the benefit of his own wrong. Moreover the court held that the married person converting into Islam is not entitle to marry another woman after conversion. It was held to be an act of bigamy prohibited U/S 17 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and punishable U/S 494 of IPC and it was further observed that the second marriage is void.
Ans-I have already given reference in one of my post ,of Suprem Court Jugde which invalidate the marriage after conversation.
In Vilayat Raj vs Smt. Sunita 5 it was observed by the court that if both the parties to the marriage were Hindu at the time of marriage , pre-nupital law i.e. Hindu Marriage Act applied even after conversion in Islam.
In Lilly Thomas vs Union of India 6 it was observed that an apostate husband is guilty of bigamy U/S 494 of IPC if he marriage another woman after converting into Islam. It was observed that holding such person guilty of bigamy is not violation of freedom of religion U/Article 25 of the Constitution, hence, Section 17 of H.M.A. 1955 is applicable.
From the above it is clear that after the pronouncement of the aforesaid judicial verdicts, polygamy is no more a valued person for religious conversion into Islam.
A person does not ceases to be Hindu nearly because he declares that he has no faith in his religion. A person will not cease to be Hindu even if he does not practice his religion till he does not renounces his religion or starts living and behaving like an atheist or agnostic or starts eating beef or insulting God or Goddesses. He does not ceases to be member of the religion even if he starts expressing his faith in any other religion , he continuous to be a Hindu Chandra Shekharan vs Kulundurivalu
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.