Human Rights In Hindu Marriages

Introduction

Hindu marriages are incredibly complex and form a very important part of the religion. As such, it is only natural that there are those who would seek full recognition of Hindu Marriage so that the Hindu community is able to achieve access to justice where in areas such as right to divorce and share of property in terms of intestate succession. However, this recognition is not easy to come by due to the issues that might arise if Hindu marital practices were to be reduced into a single legislation.

Issues

Dowry and male domination

Hindu women face quite a number of issues under Hindu marriage. This is mainly due to the fact that the husband is regarded as being in a dominant position in most aspects of the marriage which will

This is very problematic because this practice brings with in a number of human rights violations. This practice violates s9, 10, 12 and 21 of the Constitution. These are the right to dignity, equality, freedom and security of the person and freedom of movement and residence. These rights are very important, particularly the right to dignity and equality, both of which cannot be limited in any way. In addition to this there is also the Universal Declaration of Human rights s16(2) which stipulates that forced marriage is a violation of internationally recognised human rights standards. Usually, marriage will only occur with the free and full consent of the both spouses. Further issues that might arise with recognition are that it would contravene more international laws such as a woman’s right to choose a spouse which is linked to her right to her life, dignity and equality. Some of these arranged marriages are even enforced through

This means that there is a need to perform a balancing act between keeping in line with the constitution and allowing for people to freely practice their religion. However, it is important to note s36 of The Constitution which is the limitations clause. This clause stipulates that one’s rights maybe limited if there is a justification. In this case, although one has the right to freely practice their religion it is limited when that right is realised at the expense of the another’s human rights which can never be