SC declines to recognise marriage with maternal uncle

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on Friday declined to grant recognition to the marriage of a woman with her maternal uncle as part of custom in Karnataka's Vokkaliga community.

The top court denied her claims to properties of her maternal grandfather on the basis of her marriage with his son, as she failed to prove that such kind of matrimonial alliance was recognised as a custom in the Vokkaliga community.

A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta said the woman has not proved custom of marriage to her mother’s brother (maternal uncle) and or brought out any judicial precedent recognising such marriages. So, in the absence of any precedent or custom of such marriage, no judicial notice can be taken of a custom, the court said.

“In the absence of any pleading or proof of custom, the argument that in Vokkaliga community, such marriage can be performed cannot be accepted as no judicial precedent was brought to the notice of the court that such a custom exists in the Vokkaliga community nor there is any instance quoted in evidence of existence of such custom,” Justice Gupta said in the judgement.

The top court's judgement will have ramifications in the state's dominant Vokkaliga community as such kind of marriage between a man and his sister's daughter has been prevalent as custom, though it fell within the prohibited degrees of marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Senior advocate Devdatt Kamat, appearing for the father-in-law, challenged the validity of the Karnataka HC's order which stated in law, a customary Hindu marriage can be proved only on establishing that the parties had undergone through the necessary observances. The HC had said since the father-in-law side had denied the marriage itself, they cannot be permitted to turn around to say that it was not a valid marriage.

Questioning the verdict, the senior counsel said there was no evidence to suggest necessary ceremonies, including "Saptapadi" (seven steps around fire) were performed for marriage. He also pointed out the parties fell within the prohibited degree of relationships. He also said the parties were underage below 21 years and 18 years on the date of the alleged marriage.

The court rejected the woman's contention saying she had failed to prove the marriage which was the basis of her claim to the estate.