CHENNAI: According to a family court in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, wearing sindoor (kungkumam or vermillion) is the religious duty of married Hindu women. Judge NP Singh made this remark in a case in which a man had petitioned for his estranged wife to return to his household. His spouse had been living separately for five years, and the couple have a five-year-old child. She alleged that she had been physically and mentally abused as a part of dowry harassment. These allegations were shot down during the hearing because of a lack of police complaints on the same. She was directed to return to her spouse’s home immediately.
The sindoor comment is merely a case of adding insult to injury, compared to the major features of the case. It appears from reports that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for the “the restitution of [his] conjugal rights” must have been invoked. “Conjugal rights” pertain largely to sex.
The petitioner’s wife does not wish to live with him, as evidenced by years of separation. That he has gone to court to make her move back in, specifically so that he can have sex with her, is a shocking display of entitlement that infringes on another’s personhood. Marital rape remains legal in India. If the petitioner’s wife returns to his household for some reason, whether or not she consents to have sex with him, will be immaterial in the eyes of the law. Legally speaking, he would merely be exercising his conjugal rights, not committing sexual assault. The woman has already indicated that she experienced abuse within the marriage.
Despite the judge’s directive, the woman need not return to the petitioner’s home — that cannot legally be enforced, although it certainly can be physically, which would once again constitute abuse. However, the court’s ruling has put her in a difficult situation. Should she wish to appeal formally, she would be compelled to move the case to a higher court, requiring more of her energy and resources. It’s unclear from media reports whether she has ever petitioned for a divorce.
We often hear of cases like these only once they reach higher courts, including the Supreme Court itself. Within the last couple of years, among the memorable women’s rights-related cases that went all the way to the apex court — indicating that judges had failed the women involved at every prior step — are one involving a Karnataka woman who was held hostage by her family who objected to her relationship, and one involving a single woman who wanted an abortion even though single women are prohibited from aborting after a certain number of weeks. This isn’t to say that we should hear about them, for all parties have a right to privacy.
In most situations like these, the struggles are unseen and extended — and rarely do they become legal cases. This time, a judge’s casually sexist remark — said to indicate how the woman was not wearing a marital symbol, and had forsaken the marriage — made headlines. The sindoor here is literally but a spot, a speck, relative to the serious issues at hand. Wearing it isn’t the law — not yet, anyway!
Sharanya Manivannan
@she_of_the_sea
The columnist is a writer and illustrator