CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES BEFORE THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE IN INDIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i6.2024.6311Keywords:
Marriage, Divorce, Personal Laws, Matrimonial Challenges, Live-In RelationshipsAbstract [English]
Marriage, as a social institution, has always been central to Indian society, holding deep cultural, religious, and familial significance. Though practiced in diverse forms, one of its key features is the conjugal union of a man and woman, believed to provide mutual satisfaction of biological, psychological, social, and economic needs. Marriage is also recognized as an institution with legal and moral authority. However, in recent decades, the institution of marriage in India has faced a series of challenges that are reshaping its traditional form and function. These challenges are multifaceted, encompassing socio-economic, cultural, legal, and technological dimensions. Objective: The primary objective of this paper is to critically examine the contemporary challenges confronting the institution of marriage in India. It aims to analyze the influence of changing social norms, shifting gender roles, economic pressures, globalization, and technological innovations on marital practices. Additionally, it seeks to assess the implications of recent trends such as the recognition of live-in relationships, same-sex partnerships, debates on polygamy, and the growing role of digital platforms in matchmaking. Methodology: This research adopts a doctrinal methodology, focusing on a critical examination of constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, and landmark judicial pronouncements. It also incorporates secondary sources, including books, journal articles, reports, and contemporary surveys, to contextualize these developments. A comparative perspective has been applied to situate India within global trends in marriage and family law. Significance: By combining legal and sociological perspectives, the paper contributes to the understanding of how marriage in India is being reshaped in the twenty-first century. It argues that addressing these challenges through empathetic reforms and constitutional morality can pave the way for a more inclusive and resilient marital framework.
References
Adegoke, T. G., & Oladegi, D. (2008). Community norms and cultural attitudes influencing violence against women of reproductive age in Nigeria. European Journal of Scientific Research, 20(2), 265–273. (Adegoke & Oladegi, 2008) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v2i1.41032
Amato, P., & Irving, S. (2006). Research on divorce and marital stability. (Amato & Irving, 2006)
Bartel, A. P., & Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The comparative advantage of educated workers in implementing new technologies. Review of Economic Statistics, 69(1), 1–11. (Bartel & Lichtenberg, 1987) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1937894
Basu, S. (2006). Playing off courts: The negotiation of divorce and violence in plural legal settings in Kolkata. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 38(52), 41–75. (Basu, 2006) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2006.10756591
Cave, E. (2004). Marriage and the allocation of resources. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21(2). (Cave, 2004)
Chakraborty, G. (2013). Challenges before the institution of marriage in the era of globalization. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 13(1). (Chakraborty, 2013)
Ehoro, O., & Badey, D. (2021). New media and marital instability: Exploring the implications of social media on marriages. International Journal of Innovative Development and Policy Studies, 9(3), 116–126. (Ehoro & Badey, 2021)
Gray, J. S. (1998). Divorce-law changes, household bargaining, and married women’s labor supply. The American Economic Review, 88(3), 628–642. (Gray, 1998)
Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800.
Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fedr.201800011
Kumari, R. v. Singh, S. K. (2019) 7 SCC 355.
Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475.
Lokhande, B. S. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1564.
Mulla, D. F. (2017). Principles of Mohammedan Law (22nd ed.). LexisNexis.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
Olivelle, P. (Ed.). (2004). The Law Code of Manu. Oxford University Press. (Olivelle, 2004)
Pedada, M. R. (2020). Concept of marriage and matrimonial causes. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 1(2). (Pedada, 2020)
Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667.
Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18020/kesit.1518
Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV9IS050029
WeddingWire Survey India. (2023). (WeddingWire Survey India, 2023)
White, L. (1990). Determinants of divorce. Social Forces, 68(3). (White, 1990)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Astha Mishra , Dr. Rohit P. Sharan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
