It may just be residual morning fog on my brain, but why wouldn't estoppel
be a secular principle by which a court could determine that, whether or not
the parties were validly married under Hindu custom in 1952, if for fifty
some-odd years they behaved as though they had been, then nobody is now in a
position to challenge that marriage?
Vance
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:54 AM, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote:
*Madireddy v.
Madireddy*http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_07232.htm,
decided Tuesday (and to my knowledge not covered by any other media) by a
New York intermediate appellate court:
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, and
the intervenor separately appeals, by permission, from an order of the
Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), dated September 9, 2008, which,
after a nonjury trial, determined that the plaintiff and the defendant were
validly married in India in 1952.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and
the complaint is dismissed.
The defendant correctly contends that a determination as to whether he and
the plaintiff were married in a valid Hindu ceremony in India in 1952
improperly involves the court in a religious matter. Such a determination
cannot be made on the basis of neutral principles of law. “The neutral
principles of law’ approach requires the court to apply objective, well
established principles of secular law to the issues.”
The parties’ marriage allegedly took place in 1952, prior to the enactment
in India of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which codified Hindu Law
relating to marriage and divorce.
The validity of the parties’ alleged marriage, entered into in 1952, must
be determined by analyzing the various and customary rites, customs, and
practices of the Hindu religion of a particular caste in a particular
region. This analysis is entrenched in religious doctrine and cannot be
resolved by the application of neutral principles of law. When a religious
dispute cannot be resolved by application of neutral principles of law,
without reference to religious principles, the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution prevents the court from resolving the issue. “Such
rulings violate the First Amendment because they simultaneously establish
one religious belief as correct for the organization while interfering with
the free exercise of the opposing faction’s beliefs.”
The Supreme Court determined which ceremonies are sufficient and necessary
for a valid Hindu marriage between members of the Reddy caste of Sudras in
the region of Andhra Pradesh, India, in 1952. This is a distinctly religious
determination. The court essentially determined that performance of the
ceremonies testified to by the plaintiff constitute a valid Hindu marriage
between these parties, and that the defendant’s assertions to the contrary
are incorrect. Thus, the Supreme Court was called upon to settle a religious
controversy, not only to interpret and apply Indian law. “[T]his court is
without jurisdiction to consider this issue because to do so would require
the court to review and interpret religious doctrine and resolve the
parties’ religious dispute, which the court is proscribed from doing under
the First Amendment entanglement doctrine.” Accordingly, the order must be
reversed and the complaint dismissed.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrko...@world.std.com
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
