MP Court Says Wearing 'Sindoor' Religious Duty Of Wife: Why It's Questionable

In a questionable judgement, a family court in Indore said that wearing sindoor was duty of a Hindu woman to display her married status. The court said this while hearing a case in which a wife walked out of marriage five years ago while the husband submitted a petition to restore his rights under the Hindu Marriage Act. 

Indore Family Court Principal Judge NP Singh said, "When the statement of the woman was recorded in the court, she admitted she was not wearing 'sindoor'. 'Sindoor' is a religious duty of a wife and it shows that the woman is married." 

The wife had alleged that her husband subjected her to mental and physical harassment for dowry. 

However, after going through the submissions of the woman, the court said that the wife was not abandoned by the husband. She wanted to end the marriage and so sought divorce. 

"She has forsaken her husband. She is not wearing the 'sindoor'," the court said. It also added that the wife had not made any police complaint regarding her allegations. The couple got married in 2017 and has a 5-year-old son. 

The debate on sindoor is not new

The debate on sindoor is not new. Remember when Anushka Sharma’s sindoor-less photo was edited by adding a red mark near the parting of her hair? Remember when Guwahati High court deigned the refusal of a woman to wear sindoor and shakha as a refusal to accept marriage in Hindu law? And then in West Bengal a woman's forehead was forcibly smeared with sindoor by the hands of her dead boyfriend just because she couldn't save him from dying by suicide?  

Sindoor in our society is more than just a red powder. It is a symbol of prosperity and death. But the problem is why sindoor is significant only for women? Why it goes back to being a normal red powder for men? 

The court clearly said that sindoor is necessary for every married woman because it shows that she is married. But why don't men wear anything to show their marital status? 

Society is evolving why aren't the courts? 

Today, society is developing. We see many marriages in which women put sindoor and mangalsutra on their husbands. Some husbands even touch the feet of their brides to equalise the ceremonies. But still, why is the Constitution stuck in the archaic traditions? 

Undeniably, many communities still believe in the tradition of sindoor. And women themselves embrace it as a source of their happiness. But choice is the game-changer here. Women should wear sindoor only if they choose to believe in its importance. Some women wear it even though they deny the significance that has been attached to it. It is not right to necessitate wearing sindoor, mangalsutra, shakha or anything else to show the marital status of women.

Moreover, why must women hold a placard saying that they are married? To show that they are 'taken' and cannot be objectified by sexual predators? But does sindoor save women from sexual objectification?

Let us understand that wearing sindoor or not is a choice of a woman. It is not a necessity. Especially, the courts and constitution need to emphasise this. You might say what harm can a pinch of red powder cause? Subjugation of choice and bodily autonomy is the answer.  

Views expressed are the author's own.