View source for Marriage customs: Hindu

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.<br/>
Additional information may please be sent as messages to the Facebook <br/>community, [http://www.facebook.com/Indpaedia Indpaedia.com]. All information used will be gratefully <br/>acknowledged in your name. 
</div>
|}

[[Category:India |M ]]
[[Category:Society |M ]]

=Marrying outside the caste/ community=
==Gujarat/ As of 2026==
[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=21_02_2026_021_004_cap_TOI  Ashish.Chauhan, February 21, 2026: ''The Times of India'']

Gujarat govt’s proposal that couples must inform their parents before tying the knot is yet to become law, but ‘orders’ to that effect are already in force in parts of Gujarat, where some villages and communities have come out with detailed ‘codes’ intended to govern how their members marry.

 The amendments proposed in the state assembly reflect demands and actions being pushed on the ground, with scattered village resolutions hardening into communitylevel ‘constitutions’ — resolutions and declarations that threaten couples who marry for love with boycott, ostracism, and exclusion from public life.

 From gram sabhas in Kheda district to caste organisations of Patidars and Thakors, the consensus driving such declarations is that marriage without parental consent threatens tradition, destabilises social order and endangers women.  

''' ‘Violate Ban, Face Boycott’ '''

The gram sabha in Nand village in Mahudha taluka recently passed a resolution imposing total social boycott on couples who marry despite opposition from their families. Such couples are barred from community facilities, religious gatherings and social functions. The resolution also caps wedding and funeral expenses, prohibits DJs and “objectionable songs”, and imposes fines for violations. 

 Bharat Solanki, the village sarpanch, said rising cases of marriage disputes had led to the decision. “We are a village of 5,000, mostly Thakors and Darbars. There have been sagotra (intra-clan) marriages, which are not permissible. When a couple elopes, it puts parents in an embarrassing position. As these incidents have been rising, we decided to declare a ban on such marriages. Violate the ban, and you face boycott.” 
 The rules, Solanki insisted, spare no one. All communities in the village — including OBC and SC families, which form a minority — are required to comply. “The rules are for everyone. We are not targeting one single group. Violators pay Rs 21,000 fine and are excluded from village gatherings,” he said.

 Similar ‘rules’ are surfacing elsewhere, signalling a broader social churn. Village elders argue that couples who elope — their union is known locally as ‘ bhagedu lagan ’ — disrupt social harmony and bring dishonour to their families.  Geni Thakor, Congress MP from Banaskantha who spearheaded the Thakor community’s campaign against such unions, said “the decision was taken because (they) kept seeing fraudulent marriages”.  

“A girl marrying outside her community weakens its social fabric. There have been instances where women are deceived by men, subjected to abuse and, in some cases, driven to suicide. Our aim is to protect our daughters,” said Thakor, who also cited demographic factors, saying “the Patidar sex ratio is collapsing”. 

 Following the proposed amendments, Thakor said she “was the first to raise the issue of ‘ bhagedu lagan ’ when the ‘love jihad’ bill (Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2021) was tabled in the assembly”. She insisted that “99% of love marriages fail and bring misery to the girl”. Asked about the basis for her claim, she said, “I have found this in villages; it might not be the case in big cities.”  

''' ‘Parents Should Have Say’ '''

 Among Patidars, opposition to such self-choice marriages has simmered for years. Lalji Patel, who heads the Sardar Patel Group (SPG), said the movement crystallised around parental anguish.  

“During Covid, parents came to us, begging us to rescue daughters trapped in sham marriages,” Patel said. “That is why we initiated these measures.” He said the SPG has been demanding that the legal age of marriage for women be raised from 18 to 21 even as he acknowledged that the Constitution allows adults to marry by choice. “But society matters. Parents are everything. They should have a say.”  

One pamphlet distributed by the Patidar Sena in Mehsana went beyond parental consent to call for sweeping changes, including parents’ signatures on marriage registration for those aged 30 or younger. It also wanted court marriages to be restricted to the bride’s local jurisdiction, 40 to be the minimum age of witnesses, and couples who marry by choice after 30 to deposit Rs 10 lakh in their parents’ accounts and forfeit any claim to family property. 

 “These demands are born from the pain parents have gone through,” said Satish Patel, leader of the Mehsana Patidar Sena. Asked about the proposed rules, he said they were “not fully satisfied” as they also wanted “only blood relatives of girls to be signatories in the marriage registration as that ensures both parents and relatives bear full accountability for every such union”.  

Community leaders backing these demands insist they are not against people choosing whom they want to marry, but against secrecy and deception. “If a couple wants to marry and the parents agree, we have no objection,” Lalji Patel said. “But parents must be involved. They’re the ones who will always shield their daughters.” 

 He, too, said the latest proposal falls short of their demands. “The govt speaks of merely ‘informing’ parents, as though a notification is sufficient. We have demanded that parents’ consent be made mandatory.”  

''' ‘Love Marriage No Crime’ '''  

Legal experts warn that such measures strike at the core of constitutional freedoms but those who fall foul of such diktats say that they have to face serious difficulties in their day-to-day lives. 

 A Dalit man from northern Gujarat who married a woman from the Darbar community in 2015 — Darbars are placed higher in the social hierarchy — said they have had to change their residence at least 50 times and stay off social media to avoid being traced. Both hold postgraduate degrees but cannot find stable work. 

 “We’ve not been able to work at one place. We are dependent on daily wages even though we both hold PG degrees,” the man said. “We took up jobs with NGOs, but my wife’s family members or relatives traced me there during fieldwork.”  

Kaushik Parmar, a lawyer from Mehsana who works with intercaste couples, slammed the proposed changes in the marriage registration rules, saying that “love marriage is not the enemy of society; it is the right of a free citizen”. “Every attempt to curb it weakens the Constitution and strengthens caste hierarchies. If we truly want a progressive, equal, and just society, we must see love marriage not as a crime but as an instrument of social change. These rules amount to the murder of democracy,” he said.