Guwahati HC Says Married Women Who Don’t Wear Sindoor Are Unwilling To Accept Marriage

Just a few days ago in Karnataka High Court’s hearing of an alleged rape case, the judge had attacked the victim with certain sexist questions like why did she go to her office at 11 PM, why did she have drinks with the accused, etc.

Now, the Guwahati High Court claimed that a married Hindu woman’s refusal to wear sakha (bangles made of conch-shell) and sindoor (vermillion) as per the marriage rituals and customs, signifies her refusal/unwillingness to accept her marriage to the husband, reports Hindustan Times.

The incident occurred during the Guwahati High Court’s hearing of a divorce case.

The wife, a few months into the marriage, did not wish to live amongst a joint family and wanted a separate accommodation. The husband alleged that the couple would often get into fights which affected their conjugal relations. The wife also allegedly failed to conceive a child.

The wife had left his home and filed a case against the husband and his family under Section 498A (husband or his relative subjecting a married woman to cruelty). The husband’s side was declared not guilty in court.

Following this, the husband filed for divorce citing cruelty by his wife in a Family Court in Assam. However, the court rejected the divorce plea because the wife was not found to have inflicted cruelty against the husband.

The case was then moved to HC. The husband alleged that the wife refused to wear sakha and sindoor. The woman did not deny the claim.

The HC, in its order, said that the woman’s unwillingness to wear sakha and sindoor signified that she doesn’t accept the marriage and granted the husband’s plea for divorce.

“Under such circumstances, compelling the husband to continue to be in matrimony with the wife may be construed to be harassment,” the HC stated.

People on the internet are astonished by the HC’s statement and called it regressive, sexist, and dated. Have a look:

Very progressive by Gauhati HC, nearly reached 18th century.

— Soumya Roy (@Soumya_221089) June 29, 2020

https://twitter.com/sonia_sinha/status/1277508956085084160

And Men without wearing wedding ring and Henna on pinky should be also considered as refusal to accept marriage.

Birbal 1560 AD.

— Bilal بلال (@thedarbilal) June 29, 2020

What absolute crock. Acceptance or denial of a marriage can’t be reduced to symbolism. Marriage is a contract. What matters is whether or not the parties accept that they’re married.
I hope this judgment is challenged and set aside

— Dushyant Krishnan (@DushyantKrishna) June 29, 2020

So refusal to eat roti signifies refusal to accept Indian nationality?

— NJ (@Nihalinvincible) June 29, 2020

What? Is that judiciary or panchayat!

— Satwant Singh Rissam (@ssrissam) June 29, 2020

Symbolism should be done away with. Why women only has to carry forward such tradition? If they wish to do with it then it's fine. If they wish to do without it., that should also be fine.

— inomam (@wallgazer0) June 29, 2020

Guwahati HC thoughts are regressive and patriarchal. Go back to college and learn basics 😂

— Jayanti Dey (@jdey63) June 29, 2020

Sounds absurd . Who wear Sindur now adays but does it signifies they refuse marriage too . Why all onus of carrying out traditional values is on women .

— saket (@saketghy) June 29, 2020

Going back. One step at a time

— Tushar Gupta (@tushargupta21) June 29, 2020

Disgusting judgement. Im a married women who wore mangalsutra and sindoor. In usa my mangalsutra broke in the middle of pandemic. That does not mean im not married.

— Meetdeepz (@Meetdeepz2) June 29, 2020

It is problematic when a judicial system adopts a more subjective approach while handling and offering judgements on a case. The judiciary is expected to be completely objective. Judicial decisions should be based solely out of facts and evidence and not on personal, biased opinions.

What is even more concerning is a system of justice that uses regressive and downright sexist justifications for their decisions.