What is the Prohibited Degree of Relationship?
1. Legal Definition and Basis
In most legal systems, the prohibited degrees of relationship are explicitly defined in statutory law (e.g., marriage acts or family laws) and vary depending on the jurisdiction, religious customs, and personal law (especially in countries like India, where multiple personal laws exist).
Common Principles Across Jurisdictions:
Marriages between ascendants and descendants (e.g., parent and child, grandparent and grandchild) are always prohibited.
Marriages between siblings, whether full or half-blood, are prohibited.
Some laws also prohibit marriage between in-laws, aunt/uncle and niece/nephew, or first cousins, depending on the law followed.
2. Example from Indian Law:
a. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 3(g) & 5(v))
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage is void if the parties are within the degrees of prohibited relationship, unless custom or usage governing each of them permits such a marriage.
Section 3(g): Defines “degrees of prohibited relationship”
A man and any of the following female relatives are within the prohibited degree:
His mother
His father's or mother's sister
His brother's daughter or sister's daughter
His son's wife
His granddaughter
And other similar relationships
This is reciprocated for women marrying men of similarly close relations.
Section 5(v): Conditions for a valid Hindu marriage:
"The parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two."
Note: "Sapinda" refers to blood relatives up to three generations on the mother's side and five generations on the father's side.
3. Muslim Law:
Under Muslim Personal Law, the concept of prohibited degrees is derived from the Quran and Hadith.
A Muslim man cannot marry:
His mother, daughter, sister
His aunt (paternal or maternal)
His niece (brother’s or sister’s daughter)
A woman who has suckled from the same woman as he did (foster relationship – Rada’a)
Such marriages are batil (void).
4. Christian Law (India – Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872):
Although the Act does not directly list prohibited degrees, it follows the principles of Canon Law, which prohibits marriage between close blood relatives, e.g.:
Parents and children
Siblings
Aunt/uncle and niece/nephew
5. Parsi Law (Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936):
Prohibits marriage between individuals related within prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity.
6. Case Law:
✅ 1. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam & Ors (2004) 3 SCC 199
Although not directly about prohibited relationships, the Supreme Court held that a marriage void due to breach of personal law still has consequences for maintenance and women's rights, emphasizing the need for fair treatment even in void or voidable marriages.
✅ 2. Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra (1965)
In this case, the court emphasized that valid marriage under Hindu law requires compliance with rituals and absence of prohibited relationship. If a marriage violates these norms, it is void.
✅ 3. Robb v. Robb (UK case)
This English case highlighted the importance of prohibiting marriage between people in certain degrees of consanguinity for genetic and moral reasons.
7. Importance of Prohibited Degrees of Relationship
Genetic protection: Reduces risk of hereditary disorders
Moral and social order: Prevents exploitation or coercion within families
Religious compliance: Most religions view incestuous relationships as sinful
Legal clarity: Provides clear boundaries for valid marriages
8. Exceptions:
In some cultures or communities, customs allow marriage between first cousins (e.g., among some Muslim and South Indian communities).
These exceptions must be proven in court if challenged.
✅ Conclusion:
The concept of Prohibited Degree of Relationship ensures that marriages are not solemnized between people who are too closely related either by blood or by marriage. The specific rules depend on the personal law, but the principle is universal: such marriages are void, socially discouraged, and often carry legal consequences.
0 comments