Sikh Marriage Act -

I am about to ask an important question that has bugged me for quite a while.

Why dont Sikhs have a seperate marriage act in India?


I request people not to direct anything at each other and direct it to me so this does not turn into a flame war. I hope to incorporate this into my law thesis...which i hopefully will do in the future and i want view points.

Thank you in advance.

What key features u want in this proposed law? different from now?

Because Sikhism is not recognized as separate religion in the Indian constitution. They are listed as kesadhari hindu in the Indian constitution. Our ancestors fought with British and they recognized our marriage act.... But then after independence, things changes! Therefore their marriage act is removed from the Indian institution sometimes after the independence (1947) and now sikhs marriages are registered under hindu marriage act.

The only problem is that the law is called 'Hindu marriage act' should be "Indian marriage act".

wats marriage act anyway ???

Dhillon said:

The only problem is that the law is called 'Hindu marriage act' should be "Indian marriage act".

Click to expand...

And there should be seperate legal section....for sikhs jains and budhists who are classified as hindus. The Act only details hindu weddings. Sikhs and other mentioned religions are forced to register their marriage under this act as hindus just because they are the minority and our constitution makers think they did everything right.

Either label the act "Indian marriage act" and add in details about sikhs or plant a seperate act for marriage just like muslims have it. Can you believe it out of all the countries even Pakistan has it for sikhs. Yes you read it....pakistan has a seperate marriage act for sikhs....Anand Karaj.

It bugs me because india calls itself the largest democracy and there are quite a lot of things that need to be recognized before it can even start thinkin about being a developed country.


Here's the act. Notice these parts are what i think are not fair....

Classifies jains, sikhs and budhists as hindus even though their teachings are seperate ----->


Details ----> (should be a seperate section like this for sikhs or an act )




I dont know why they wont want to correct this unless ofcourse legally they want 2 classify every1 as hindus. This will go a long way in repairing whatever little divide their is among indians.Check the whole detailed act here -http://indianchristians.in/news/images/resources/pdf/hindu_marriage_act_1955.pdf


I think this document is legally flawed and needs updating now that india is moving towards being a developed country with equal rights for everyone.

snoopy_amli said:

wats marriage act anyway ???

Click to expand...

The Act(law) under which marriages are registered in India. Under which your parents registered their marriage....if you were to provide proof of your parents marriage for anything could be for going abroad or a police inquiry then the certificate you will get will classify your rents as hindus not sikhs not jains not budhists.

Note: Muslims have a seperate one if i am not wrong.

Gabhru_Top_Da said:

And there should be seperate legal section....for sikhs jains and budhists who are classified as hindus.

Click to expand...

separate legal section for what ? polygamy or something ?

as far as i know its a law to register your marriage in courts in india now irrespective of your religion.

menu ehi daseya gaya si ke 2007 ton baad marriage nu court ch register karwana cumpolsary hai fer bhanve kise v act ch hoyi hove

A couple can get married in a Mandir, Gurudwara or Just exchange vows over a choclate cake,
Legally its all same and you are not legally married unless you register it

Dhillon said:

A couple can get married in a Mandir, Gurudwara or Just exchange vows over a choclate cake,
Legally its all same and you are not legally married unless you register it

Click to expand...

aah last wala idea bahla kaim hai bhaji

Just exchange vows over a choclate cake,

but as far as i know, before pandit or gurdwara authorities had authority to issue marriage certificates of some kind.

I am not 100% sure ,may be i am wrong but it is what i was told

punjabiology said:

Because Sikhism is not recognized as separate religion in the Indian constitution. They are listed as kesadhari hindu in the Indian constitution. Our ancestors fought with British and they recognized our marriage act.... But then after independence, things changes! Therefore their marriage act is removed from the Indian institution sometimes after the independence (1947) and now sikhs marriages are registered under hindu marriage act.

Click to expand...

so its just a different name you like to have?
Or any differentiation too?

Dhillon said:

separate legal section for what ? polygamy or something ?

Click to expand...

The Act explains hindu marriages in details and those sections may not apply to sikh or other religion's marriages.

For example....

Yfrog - kna.jpg

For sikhs the marriage does not include taking vows around the holy fire. In short what i am saying is sikhs follow different customs therefore there marriage to be classified under the hindu act is wrong. The laws have to be detailed and as specific as possible. I dont see anything wrong with adding seperate subsections for sikhs, jains or budhists or as u suggested name it "Indian marriage act" and take the "hindu marriages" reference out.


That way it is fair, right now it seems that the rule of the majority is being used for everyone. Sikhs are still classified as hindus along with jains and budhists.

It's about registering a marriage.
Hinuds should do it their way, Sikhs should do it their way.
All can register their marriage under Indian Marriage Act.

Look at all the stan's (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazakistan), stan's are not good. Same is for Hindustan. Its better to be India or Indian union and get rid of Hindustan.
If one says Hindustan Zindabad then other also has full right to say Khalistan Zindabad.

pps309 said:

It's about registering a marriage.
Hinuds should do it their way, Sikhs should do it their way.
All can register their marriage under Indian Marriage Act.

Look at all the stan's (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazakistan), stan's are not good. Same is for Hindustan. Its better to be India or Indian union and get rid of Hindustan.
If one says Hindustan Zindabad then other also has full right to say Khalistan Zindabad.

Click to expand...

may be i am going off topic, pehlan main clarify kar deyan ke neither i am inclined towards hindusim nor sikhism ,

now to clarify hindustan doesnot mean place for hindus

as per wikipedia

Hindustan ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi_language"]Hindi: हिन्दुस्तान, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu"]Urdu: ہندوستان, both Hindustān [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Hindi_and_Urdu"][ɦɪndʊˈstaːn]) "[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land"]land of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hind"]Hind", is one of the popular names of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia"]South Asia. Though the meaning of Hindustan has evolved over the years, after the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India"]partition of India it primarily refers to the Republic of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India"]India.[1]


Hindustan is derived from the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language"]Persian word Hindu, which is derived from itself[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhu"]Sindhu, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit"]Sanskrit for the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_River"]Indus River. Sindhu is a river in Sanskrit, in Persian it becomes Hindu.[2] This together with a popular suffix -stān (Sanskrit and Old Persian 'sthāna', meaning place) [3][4] gave birth to the word Hindustan, which was rendered as Hindusthan.[5] Literally, the word means land of the Indus.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan]Hindustan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



waise v bhaji hindustan reh kehra gaya, now its only INDIA or Bhaarat.

You are still not getting my point.

Putting it more straight.
till the time BJP/RSS will be playing hindu, hindi, hindustan card, Akali/Taksali will also be playing khalsa/khalistani card.

You are smart and intelligent enough to understand the correct meaning of Hindustan but not every hindu or Indian.
Same way not every Sikh or Indian is smart enough to understand "Raj Karega Khalsa" or "Khalistan".

People will keep falling to the traps of Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan or Khalsa, Khalistan without understanding their meaning.
It's better to get rid of them.

BTW, I have objection to Bharat also.
If you talk about Bharat, which might was there few thousand years back, then people have right to talk about Rajputana, Punjab, Vidarbh etc etc.

It's better to be only India or Indian Union.

Please i request dont go off topic......

Hindustani, khalistani should not be the focus here.....


I want to focus on the specific law and the act.....why it needs to be amended and i dont want this to be locked. so pleaseeeeeee no offtopic replies.

pps309 said:

You are still not getting my point.

Putting it more straight.
till the time BJP/RSS will be playing hindu, hindi, hindustan card, Akali/Taksali will also be playing khalsa/khalistani card.

You are smart and intelligent enough to understand the correct meaning of Hindustan but not every hindu or Indian.
Same way not every Sikh or Indian is smart enough to understand "Raj Karega Khalsa" or "Khalistan".

People will keep falling to the traps of Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan or Khalsa, Khalistan without understanding their meaning.
It's better to get rid of them.

BTW, I have objection to Bharat also.
If you talk about Bharat, which might was there few thousand years back, then people have right to talk about Rajputana, Punjab, Vidarbh etc etc.

It's better to be only India or Indian Union.

Click to expand...

bhaji now we are on same page,

Gabhru_Top_Da said:

Please i request dont go off topic......

Hindustani, khalistani should not be the focus here.....


I want to focus on the specific law and the act.....why it needs to be amended and i dont want this to be locked. so pleaseeeeeee no offtopic replies.

Click to expand...

not going offtopic.

Replying to your original question

Why dont Sikhs have a seperate marriage act in India?

Click to expand...

coz Sikhs are not recognized as a separate religion in Indian constitution.

I have a suggestion for thread starter.

If he is realy interested in knowing why there is no sikh marriage act then he should go back.
Find out what all marriage acts were present before 1955 (Hindu Marriage Act established in 1955). Who used to get register their marriages under which act? How many of those marraige acts are still intact and what all are abolsihed and why?

If you can find the answers, please share with all of us.