Foreign Marriage Act, 1969

Last updated
Foreign Marriage Act, 1969
Emblem of India.svg
Parliament of India
  • An Act to make provision relating to marriages of citizens of India outside India.
Citation Act No. 33 of 1969
Enacted by Parliament of India
Enacted31 August 1969
Commenced31 August 1969
Status: In force

The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted on 31 August 1969. [1] It was enacted due to the recommendations of the Third Law Commission with the object of streamlining the law relating to recognition of marriages solemnized outside India between Indian citizens, or an Indian citizen and a foreign citizen. [2]

Contents

Purpose

The main purpose of the act was to recognise the marriage of citizens of India outside India. [3]

Judicial Review

Supriyo v. Union of India

The petition requested the Supreme Court to recognise the marriage between any two persons, regardless of gender identity and sexual orientation, and declare the notice and objection provisions as void, by enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. [4] [5]

In October 2020, Vaibhav Jain and Parag Vijay Mehta filed a petition in Delhi High Court and they were joined by other petitioners over the course of time. [6] [7] On 6 January 2023, their petitions were transferred to Supreme Court to be heard along with Supriyo v. Union of India (2023). [8] [9] Additionally, most of the petitioners challenged the notice and objection provisions of the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act which hurt vulnerable minorities. [4] [5] [10]

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of various communities are governed by their religious scriptures. Implementation of a uniform civil code across the nation is pursued by India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Personal laws cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. While articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee religious freedom to Indian citizens and allow religious groups to maintain their own affairs, article 44 expects the Indian state to apply directive principles and common law for all Indian citizens while formulating national policies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Securities and Exchange Board of India</span> Regulatory body for securities in India

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is the regulatory body for securities and commodity market in India under the administrative domain of Ministry of Finance within the Government of India. It was established on 12 April 1988 as an executive body and was given statutory powers on 30 January 1992 through the SEBI Act, 1992.SEBI's establishment brought about a centralized regulatory framework, consolidating regulatory functions related to securities trading, issuance, and intermediation under one umbrella.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Government of India</span> Legislative, executive and judiciary authority of India

The Government of India, also known as the Central Government or union government, is the national authority of the Republic of India, a federal democracy located in South Asia, consisting of 28 union states and eight union territories.

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000</span>

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 is the primary legal framework for juvenile justice in India. The act provides for a special approach towards the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and provides a framework for the protection, treatment and rehabilitation of children in the purview of the juvenile justice system. This law, brought in compliance of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), repealed the earlier Juvenile Justice Act of 1986 after India signed and ratified the UNCRC in 1992. In the wake of Delhi gang rape, the law suffered a nationwide criticism owing to its helplessness against crimes where juveniles get involved in heinous crimes like rape and murder. In 2015, responding to the public sentiment, both the houses of parliament in India further amended the bill that proposed adult-like treatment for juveniles aged 16–18 above accused of heinous crimes. The lower house, i.e. Lok Sabha passed the bill on 7 May 2015 and the upper house, i.e. Rajya Sabha on 22 December 2015. The bill was approved by President Pranab Mukherjee's assent on 31 December 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Bangladesh</span> Overview of the law of Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a common law country having its legal system developed by the British rulers during their colonial rule over British India. The land now comprises Bangladesh was known as Bengal during the British and Mughal regime while by some other names earlier. Though there were religious and political equipments and institutions from almost prehistoric era, Mughals first tried to recognise and establish them through state mechanisms. The Charter of 1726, granted by King George I, authorised the East India Company to establish Mayor's Courts in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta and is recognised as the first codified law for the British India. As a part of the then British India, it was the first codified law for the then Bengal too. Since independence in 1971, statutory law enacted by the Parliament of Bangladesh has been the primary form of legislation. Judge-made law continues to be significant in areas such as constitutional law. Unlike in other common law countries, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh has the power to not only interpret laws made by the parliament, but to also declare them null and void and to enforce fundamental rights of the citizens. The Bangladesh Code includes a compilation of all laws since 1836. The vast majority of Bangladeshi laws are in English. But most laws adopted after 1987 are in Bengali. Family law is intertwined with religious law. Bangladesh has significant international law obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Marriage Act, 1954</span> Indian Marriage Law

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an Act of the Parliament of India with provision for civil marriage for people of India and all Indian nationals in foreign countries, irrelevant of the religion or faith followed by either party. The Act originated from a piece of legislation proposed during the late 19th century. Marriages solemnized under Special Marriage Act are not governed by personal laws.

The Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955 which was passed on 18 May. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).

India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships. Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Enforcement Directorate</span> Law enforcement agency and economic intelligence agency of India

The Directorate of Enforcementor Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a domestic law enforcement agency and economic intelligence agency responsible for enforcing economic laws and fighting economic crimes in India. It is part of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government Of India. The Enforcement Directorate focuses on investigating and prosecuting cases related to money laundering, foreign exchange violations, corruption, and economic offenses. Its primary objective is to curb the generation and circulation of black money and to ensure compliance with the laws concerning foreign exchange and prevention of money laundering.

Arjan Kumar Sikri is an eminent jurist and a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge on 12 April 2013. Earlier, he had served as the chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He retired as senior most puisne judge of Supreme Court of India on 6 March 2019.

Lily Isabel Thomas was an Indian lawyer who initiated improvement and change to existing laws by filing petitions in India's apex court, the Supreme Court of India and regional courts. Her petitions resulted in changes to laws to prevent convicted politicians getting elected, the addition of a new marriage law and protections for parliamentarians. She was hailed most notably for petitioning to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy is an Indian retired judge of the Karnataka High Court who was also the original petitioner, challenging the Government of India over making Aadhaar mandatory. He had filed a writ petition in 2012 and over the last five years, 26 other petitions have been tagged along with his, challenging the scheme.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

<i>Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha &Ors.(2020) is case where the Orissa High Court upheld the right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression. The court recognized the rights of trans persons to cohabit with the partner of their choice, regardless of the “gender” of the partner.

<i>Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Arun Kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration&Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.

<i>Ujjawal v. State of Haryana</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."

<i>Supriyo v. Union of India</i> Ongoing Indian LGBT rights case law

Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. A five-judge Constitution Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice S.R Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha, heard 20 connected cases brought by 52 petitioners.

References

  1. Foreign Marriage Act of 31 August 1969 (PDF). Parliament of India.
  2. Third Law Commission (August 1962). Law of Foreign Marriages (PDF) (Report). Law Commission of India . Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  3. "The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  4. 1 2 Deshwal, Puneet (2023-02-20). "Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Recognition Of Transgender Persons Under Special Marriage Act 1954". www.verdictum.in. Retrieved 2023-02-22.
  5. 1 2 "Same-Sex Couples Already Vulnerable, Public Notice Of Intended Wedding Under Special Marriage Act A Deterrent: Plea In Supreme Court, Notice Issued". www.livelaw.in. 2023-01-06. Retrieved 2023-02-27.
  6. Vaibhav Jai & Parag Vijay Mehta versus Union Of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice. (PDF) (Writ Petition (Civil)), High Court of Delhi, October 8, 2020, archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2023, retrieved March 1, 2023{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  7. Nundy, Karuna; Goel, Ruchira; Mukherjee, Utsav; Nagpal, Ragini; Chitravanshi, Abhay (July 5, 2021), Joydeep Sengupta, Russell Blaine Stephens & Mario Leslie Dpenha versus Union Of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice. (PDF) (Writ Petition (Civil)), High Court of Delhi, archived from the original (PDF) on March 13, 2023, retrieved March 1, 2023{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  8. "Supreme Court transfers to itself all petitions on same-sex marriage". The Hindu . 2023-01-06. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 2023-02-13.
  9. Supriyo a.k.a. Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang versus Union Of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, W.P.(C) No. 1011/2022 ( Supreme Court of India 6 January 2023).
  10. Bhatia, Gautam; Saxena, Utkarsh; Sekhri, Abhinav; Jain, Hrishika (December 15, 2022), Utkarsh Saxena & Ananya Kotia versus Union Of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice. (PDF) (Writ Petition (Civil)), Supreme Court of India {{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)