Comments taken out of context can be misused. This poses a problem in the case of pronouncements by courts, because these carry special weight. Recently, the Patna High Court reportedly said that divorce was not a private matter because society had a stake in the institution of marriage. The context was a case in which the high court did not find proper reasons to grant divorce to a petitioner. Outside of that context, however, the statement may seem confusing. Marriage is a matter personal to two individuals; the Patna High Court reportedly said that the decision to marry was a personal choice. It is true that weddings are often celebrated as a social event; the court’s comment seemed to be making a distinction between the decision to marry and the matrimonial state. But the religious or social witnessing of a marriage cannot make the relationship between spouses a public matter. Whether it continues or breaks off, the decision is made within the private circle of the spouses. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of privacy as a fundamental right had laid the grounds for clearly separating the private arena from the public, so there should be no confusion.

The public aspect of marriage and divorce is represented by the law, which is used in both events to seal the relationship in union and in its dissolution. Apart from settling technical issues, such as conjugal rights, maintenance, children’s identities, inheritance and many others, this directs society’s perception of the relationship. Society might have a stake in the marriage institution as a form of accepted order, but that relies on assumptions of a hetero-normative society within a framework of patriarchal values. Society’s interference in marriage and divorce as a manifestation of its ‘stake’ takes numberless oppressive forms that have become tragically common in India today. From honour killings and khap panchayat cruelties to ‘anti-Romeo’ squads and love jihad vigilantism, right down to misplaced complaints of abduction and rape by authoritarian families trying to break up couples wishing to marry are ways to destroy the autonomy of individuals and dictate the form of the marriage institution. Dominant groups wishing to mould society in their own image and for their sole convenience would seize upon the idea that neither divorce nor marriage is private. That should be resisted at all costs.