Gujarat high court on Friday ruled that a Parsi woman married to a
non-Parsi man ceases to be a Parsi. A bench of high court adopted a
majority view that "a born Parsi woman by contracting civil marriage
with a non-Parsi under the Special Marriage Act would cease to be a
Parsi."
Justice Jayant Patel and Justice RM Chhaya of the three-judge bench said: "She would be deemed and presumed to have acquired the religious status of her husband unless declaration is made by the competent court for continuation of her status of Parsi Zoroastrian after her marriage."
On the other hand, the third judge, justice Akil Kureshi, gave a distinct opinion:"A woman who is born Parsi Zoroastrian does not cease to be so merely by virtue of solemnising the marriage under the Act of 1954 with a man belonging to another religion. Professing one's religion is a matter of faith."
The larger bench gave the common view that there is not clear customs in the Parsi community to establish that a Parsi woman married to a non-Parsi cannot perform Parsi rites. The two judges said, "We find that it is not possible for us to decide on the evidence available on record as to whether such religious practices prohibiting non-Parsi is an integral part of Parsi Zoroastrian or not. A detailed fact-finding inquiry may be required for such purpose."
However, justice Kureshi observed that, "I would like to briefly touch on the question of validity of so-called custom or usage denying a Parsi Zoroastrian woman certain rights upon her marriage to a non-Parsi. Proof of any such custom is hazy and at best inconsistent. Whether such a custom or usage exists is yet to be established."
The court was hearing the petition filed by Goolrukh Gupta, a resident of Valsad and married to one Mahipal Gupta, a Hindu, in Mumbai. She raised the issue that she should not barred from performing any Parsi customs and rituals as she married to a man of other religion.
She contended that even after the marriage, she has continued to follow Zoroastrian religion and therefore, she has the right to enjoy all privileges under the Parsi religion, including the right to offer prayers at Agiyari and tower of silence.
The issue was first heard by a two-judge bench but it referred the matter to a larger bench. The issues were: Whether the petitioner, a born Parsi woman by virtue of contracting a civil marriage with a non-parsi man under the Special Marriage Act, ceases to be a Parsi? If the first issue is answered in negative, then the question will be as to whether the respondents are justified in refusing the petitioner her rights of being a natural Parsi? And whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ ofmandamus to the respondents to grant relief as sought in the present case.
Justice Jayant Patel and Justice RM Chhaya of the three-judge bench said: "She would be deemed and presumed to have acquired the religious status of her husband unless declaration is made by the competent court for continuation of her status of Parsi Zoroastrian after her marriage."
On the other hand, the third judge, justice Akil Kureshi, gave a distinct opinion:"A woman who is born Parsi Zoroastrian does not cease to be so merely by virtue of solemnising the marriage under the Act of 1954 with a man belonging to another religion. Professing one's religion is a matter of faith."
The larger bench gave the common view that there is not clear customs in the Parsi community to establish that a Parsi woman married to a non-Parsi cannot perform Parsi rites. The two judges said, "We find that it is not possible for us to decide on the evidence available on record as to whether such religious practices prohibiting non-Parsi is an integral part of Parsi Zoroastrian or not. A detailed fact-finding inquiry may be required for such purpose."
However, justice Kureshi observed that, "I would like to briefly touch on the question of validity of so-called custom or usage denying a Parsi Zoroastrian woman certain rights upon her marriage to a non-Parsi. Proof of any such custom is hazy and at best inconsistent. Whether such a custom or usage exists is yet to be established."
The court was hearing the petition filed by Goolrukh Gupta, a resident of Valsad and married to one Mahipal Gupta, a Hindu, in Mumbai. She raised the issue that she should not barred from performing any Parsi customs and rituals as she married to a man of other religion.
She contended that even after the marriage, she has continued to follow Zoroastrian religion and therefore, she has the right to enjoy all privileges under the Parsi religion, including the right to offer prayers at Agiyari and tower of silence.
The issue was first heard by a two-judge bench but it referred the matter to a larger bench. The issues were: Whether the petitioner, a born Parsi woman by virtue of contracting a civil marriage with a non-parsi man under the Special Marriage Act, ceases to be a Parsi? If the first issue is answered in negative, then the question will be as to whether the respondents are justified in refusing the petitioner her rights of being a natural Parsi? And whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ ofmandamus to the respondents to grant relief as sought in the present case.
No comments:
Post a Comment