Caste of Women Post Marriage

Two days back, Bombay High Court made a controversial ruling.

Marriage doesn’t change a woman’s caste, rules HC
Hetal Vyas / DNASaturday, January 23, 2010 0:14 IST

A woman’s caste does not change after marriage, the Bombay high court has ruled.

The order came on Friday on the hearing of an application by Mumbai resident Rajendra Shrivastava, who had sought anticipatory bail after his wife, a scheduled caste, accused him and her in-laws of dowry harassment and ‘casteist atrocities’.

Shrivastava said that since the woman was married to him, a forward caste man, she could not seek protection or benefits under the Prevention of Atrocities Act (PAA), 1989.

But the bench of justices BH Marlapalle, Abhay Oka and RY Ganoo did not agree.

It said: When a woman born in a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe (SC/ST) marries a person belonging to a forward caste, her caste does not change.

An SC/ST person suffers from disadvantages and indignities just because he or she is born into a particular caste, which he or she acquires involuntarily on birth.

The suffering of such a person is not wiped out by marriage to a person born in a forward caste. The SC/ST label continues notwithstanding marriage.

Ref - http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_marriage-doesn-t-change-a-woman-s-caste-rules-h_1338153

I think the court is making a mistake here. No one says the indignities of a person from so called lower caste is “wiped out” (wiping out indicates towards making null the atrocities done in the past), but the petition here was for whether such a person should keep getting benefits of the law applicable for her even “post marriage” (when the woman was accepted in the family of a so called higher caste and also acquired new surname)?

This issue is tricky. If the court says a person will never lose/change his/her caste status that s/he acquired by virtue of birth; then it’s sad and a hopeless situation. I don’t think the court of law should pass such a harsh verdict, confining a person with status acquired by birth.

Such a verdict will also make men avoid marrying inter-caste to women from SC/ST communities - in order to avoid potential legal actions. If a husband and wife fight and the wife files a case under Prevention of Atrocities Act (SC/ST), the man’s future may get doomed.

I think such harsh laws should not be applicable for marital disputes. If the man had married the woman, he would have considered her as ‘equal’. If he changed his mind afterwards, then also such cases could be filed under normal human rights laws (e.g. Protection of Civil Rights Act), not necessarily PAA (Prevention of Atrocities Act). The only situation where this rule may deem fit to be applied is when atrocities are made against the woman by her in-laws and relatives. Some times a man from so called higher caste marries a woman from so called lower caste without honest consent from his parents and relatives. In such cases, the bride may have to bear atrocities in hands of her in-laws, because of her previous caste. But husbands should be spared from this act.

I think PAA should not be applicable under marital disputes; otherwise there are high chances that this law would be misused by aggrieved women and it would discourage inter-caste marriages.

- Rahul

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Yajurveda 13.42

Touching Paras

God’s Own Terror?