DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22900#0317
270
FIISTOR Y OF THE PARSIS. [chap. v.
marriage with a stranger of another faith, the inter-
vention of law to render such marriage contract civilly
null and void would appear to be singularly harsh
and oppressive."
On these two important questions, about which the
European members of the Commission differed from
their native colleagues, the Government of Bombay,
in its resolution dated 20th October 1863, rightly
agreed with the former and expressed itself thus :—
"The Honourable the Governor in Council considers that the
Commission has taken exactly that view of this question which
good policy and common sense would dictate. The Commission
would not prohibit such marriages by explicit legislation, but at
the same time it would omit the provisions in the proposed Act
which relate to them, and -which are intended to assert and
vindicate the duties and obligations arising from such contracts.
It would leave them to be dealt with, in foro clomestico as it were,
by the Panchayet. This is, in the opinion of the Honourable
the Governor in Council, exactly the proper view. The British
Government cannot justly be called on, when legislating for the
assertion of Parsi rights, to recognise customs which it deems
injurious, and which have no sanction from the religious law of
the Parsis, but which have been insensibly adopted from the
Hindus around them.
"The Honourable the Governor in Council also considers that
he should express an opinion on the 9th question discussed by
the Committee.
' Can the Indian Legislature be rightly asked to recognise
difference of religious belief existing before and at the time
of marriage as a valid ground for rendering a Parsi marriage
ipso facto void, or to recognise difference of religious belief
taking place after marriage as a valid ground for rendering
a Parsi marriage voidable V
"The European members of the Commission cannot recom-
mend that either of these provisions should be adopted by the
FIISTOR Y OF THE PARSIS. [chap. v.
marriage with a stranger of another faith, the inter-
vention of law to render such marriage contract civilly
null and void would appear to be singularly harsh
and oppressive."
On these two important questions, about which the
European members of the Commission differed from
their native colleagues, the Government of Bombay,
in its resolution dated 20th October 1863, rightly
agreed with the former and expressed itself thus :—
"The Honourable the Governor in Council considers that the
Commission has taken exactly that view of this question which
good policy and common sense would dictate. The Commission
would not prohibit such marriages by explicit legislation, but at
the same time it would omit the provisions in the proposed Act
which relate to them, and -which are intended to assert and
vindicate the duties and obligations arising from such contracts.
It would leave them to be dealt with, in foro clomestico as it were,
by the Panchayet. This is, in the opinion of the Honourable
the Governor in Council, exactly the proper view. The British
Government cannot justly be called on, when legislating for the
assertion of Parsi rights, to recognise customs which it deems
injurious, and which have no sanction from the religious law of
the Parsis, but which have been insensibly adopted from the
Hindus around them.
"The Honourable the Governor in Council also considers that
he should express an opinion on the 9th question discussed by
the Committee.
' Can the Indian Legislature be rightly asked to recognise
difference of religious belief existing before and at the time
of marriage as a valid ground for rendering a Parsi marriage
ipso facto void, or to recognise difference of religious belief
taking place after marriage as a valid ground for rendering
a Parsi marriage voidable V
"The European members of the Commission cannot recom-
mend that either of these provisions should be adopted by the