Does marrying non-Parsi change Parsi woman’s religion? HC bench divided

The petition was moved by one Goolrokh Adi Contractor,who had married Mahipal Gupta,a Hindu,under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.

Goolrokh moved the petition after the Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust did not allow another Parsi woman,Dilbar,who had also married a non-Parsi,to attend the last rites of her parents after their deaths.

Fearing she too will meet the same treatment at the time of deaths of her parents,Goolrokh moved the petition,which was first heard by a division bench.

The division bench had framed three questions to be decided in the petition and referred the matter to a larger bench comprising Justices Jayant Patel,Akil Kureshi and R M Chhaya.

The three questions were:

1. Whether Goolrokh,born as Parsi,ceased to be a Parsi after a civil marriage with a non-Parsi man under the Special Marriage Act?

2. If not,are the respondents,including the Valsad Parsi Anjuman Trust are justified in refusing her rights of being a natural Parsi?

3. Whether the HC can,under Article 226 of the Constitution,issue a writ to the respondents to grant relief as sought in the present case?

Goolrokh argued there is no law in Parsi religion that prohibits her entry into any religious place for marrying a non-Parsi. She also contended she has followed Parsi religion even after her marriage.

The Parsi panchayat argued that she ceased to be a Parsi after marrying a non-Parsi and therefore,she could not be allowed at all religious functions. They also argued that Goolrokh had converted to Hinduism before marriage and had assumed the name Neha. The trust also contended it was not ‘State’ under the provisions of the Constitution and therefore,the court could not issue writ against them over the issue.

While the bench dismissed Goolrokh’s petition on legal grounds,the three judges differed in their opinions on the three questions.

Justices Patel and Chhaya were of the view that Goolrokh would cease to be Parsi and would be presumed to have acquired the religion of her husband unless a competent court made declaration for continuation of her status as a Parsi after marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.

However,giving a dissenting view on this question,Justice Kureshi concluded,“…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.”

Justice Kureshi observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that Goolrokh converted to Hinduism. “Simply because she adopted the Hindu sounding name of Neha,it cannot be presumed that she relinquished her religion and embraced Hindu religion before or even after her marriage,” Justice Kureshi observed.

On the second question,the bench was of the view that it could not be decided due to certain reasons mentioned in the judgment.

On the third question,Justices Patel and Chhaya ruled that no writ could be issued on it,again citing certain legal points. Justice Kureshi observed that the petition with reference to the third question was not maintainable.

Custom vs reforms: Judges stay off

Goolrokh’s lawyer had argued that the respondent Parsi trust should discard outdated customs of prohibiting somebody from attending and perform last rites of her parents.

Reacting to the submission,Justice Kureshi observed in his judgment,“To my mind,it is not the function,even the power,of the court to mandate discarding of old customs merely on the ground that with passage of time,such customs have become outdated. If at all,it is for the legislature to make laws outlawing such customs,if necessary…” Concluding his judgment,Justice Kureshi observed,“All reforms start with a humble beginning.”