Twitter users are sharing photos that show them without "sindoor" (vermillion), "mangalsutra" (scared thread), and other traditional symbols of marriage. The flood of posts shared with the hashtag #WithoutSymbolsOfMarriage comes after the Gauhati High Court recently granted divorce to a man, ruling that his wife's refusal to wear "shakha" (conch shell bangle) and "sindoor" amounted to her refusal to accept the marriage.
On Twitter, several women have shared selfies and throwback pictures from their wedding day that show them without sindoor, mangalsutra, bangles or bindis - all things that married Hindu women wear per custom.
"Bangles, sindoor, bindi and mangalsutra are not the only markers of marriage. We are beautiful and married without all this as well, Honorable High Court," wrote one Twitter user.
"Love, mutual understanding and equality matter in a marriage, not symbols," said another.
"Without mangalsutra, without jewellery, without sindoor... that's how we got married at Tis Hazari Court," wrote a Twitter user, sharing a throwback picture from his wedding day.
"Wearing vermillion, bangles or bindi is my choice," another user of the microblogging platform asserted. "How does wearing or not wearing these amount to cruelty?"
सन 2018 में संविधान को साक्षी मानकर हमने साथी को चुना था, सिंदूर, मंगलसूत्र कुछ नही पहना, ना पंडित के मंत्र, अब ये रिश्ता लीगल है या इललीगल, ये कोई एक कैसे तय कर सकता है?? सिंदूर, चूड़ी, बिंदी से सब मेरी मर्जी है इसको करना या नही करना, ये क्रूरता कैसे? pic.twitter.com/lzOq9vJ3ni— Advocate Priyanka Shukla (Priya Shukla) (@priyankaaap23) June 30, 2020
The Gauhati High Court, in the controversial divorce order on June 19, said according to PTI: "... her refusal to wear "shakha and sindoor" will project her to be unmarried and/or signify her refusal to accept the marriage with the appellant (husband). Such categorical stand of the respondent (wife) points to the clear intention of the respondent that she is unwilling to continue her conjugal life with the appellant."
The man and woman married in 2012 and separated a year later. The woman had accused her husband and his family members of torturing her, but the allegation was "unsubstantiated", the bench said.
"Such acts of lodging criminal cases on unsubstantiated allegations against the husband and/or the husband's family members amounts to cruelty as held by the Supreme Court," they said in the order.
A family court ignored the fact that the woman had "compelled and prevented her husband from performing his statutory duties towards his aged mother" under the provisions of the Maintenance and
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the judges said.
"Such evidence is sufficient to be construed as an act of cruelty," the order added.Click for more trending news