By K. Nandhini , 4th year BA.LLB
Andaman Law College
Abstract
Traditional Indian marriage customs—early marriage for women, the exclusive mangalsutra symbol, and patrilocal residence—entrench gender inequality and curtail women’s autonomy. Linked to son preference and menstrual taboos, these patriarchal norms exacerbate vulnerabilities like domestic violence (31.4% of crimes against women in 2022, per NCRB). This analysis explores historical, cultural, and economic drivers, impacts on rights, and legal countermeasures, including the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (amended 2021), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Using NFHS-5 (2019-21) and NCRB data, alongside Supreme Court rulings, we advocate community education, enforcement, and gender-neutral reforms to align practices with constitutional equality (Articles 14, 15, 21) and human rights standards.
Keywords: Gender Inequality, Early Marriage, Mangalsutra, Patrilocality, Son Preference, Menstrual Taboos, Indian Law, Women’s Rights, Supreme Court Rulings
Introduction: Marriage in India remains a patriarchal institution, with practices like early female marriage, gendered symbols (mangalsutra), and patrilocal relocation reinforcing disparities. NFHS-5 data show 23.3% of women aged 20-24 married before 18, versus 2.6% of men, despite legal minima of 21. NCRB (2022) links 31.4% of crimes against women to domestic violence in patrilocal setups. Intertwined with son preference (“Beti paraya dhan hai”) and menstrual taboos from texts like Manusmriti, these customs undermine women’s education, health, and independence. This paper examines roots, impacts, laws, and judicial precedents, proposing reforms akin to accountability in nuclear liability laws (e.g., Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010).
Historical and Cultural Drivers: Early marriage historically ensured women’s domestic roles, limiting education (only 41% of women aged 15-49 have 10+ years schooling, NFHS-5). The mangalsutra marks women’s fidelity without male equivalent, symbolizing subordination. Patrilocality, tied to patrilineal inheritance, isolates brides (88% live with husbands’ families). Son preference drives sex selection (despite PCPNDT Act, 1994), while menstrual taboos deem women “impure,” barring religious access. Economically, dowry (banned 1961) burdens families, viewing daughters as liabilities.
Impacts on Women’s Rights: These practices violate equality, increasing domestic violence, health risks, and dependency. Patrilocality heightens isolation; early marriage curtails opportunities. NCRB reports 445,256 crimes against women in 2022, with cruelty predominant.
Legal Frameworks and Judicial Interventions
Key laws counter inequalities:
•Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (2006, amended 2021): Sets age 21, penalizes violations to promote autonomy.
•Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005): Offers protection orders, residence rights against patrilocal abuse.
•Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act (2005): Grants equal inheritance, eroding patrilocality’s economic base.
•Dowry Prohibition Act (1961) and PCPNDT Act (1994): Combat financial burdens and sex selection.
Supreme Court rulings advance reform:
•Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Enables workplace safety, supporting delayed marriage.
•Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): Upholds spouse choice under Article 21.
•Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016): Punishes dowry deaths.
•Prakash v. Phulavati (2015) and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): Affirm daughters’ coparcenary rights, fostering independence.
Despite progress, enforcement lags due to cultural resistance.
Strategies for Reform
Paralleling nuclear liability’s accountability:
•Education: Workshops debunk myths; teach chromosomal gender determination.
•Enforcement: Bolster helplines (181), penalties via Domestic Violence and Dowry Acts.
•Gender-Neutrality: Adopt mutual symbols (rings); encourage nuclear/matrilocal living via inheritance rights.
•Male Engagement: Use NCRB data to highlight harms; promote shared roles.
•Media: Share empowered women’s stories.
Conclusion
Gendered practices perpetuate inequality, clashing with constitutional mandates. Robust laws and rulings provide levers for change, but success demands education, enforcement, and cultural shifts. Embracing gender-neutral norms will foster equitable marriages, empowering women and aligning India with global human rights.