WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT INTERFAITH MARRIAGES? DISCUSS JUDICIAL VERDICTS ABOUT INTERFAITH MARRIAGES.ALSO TELL WHAT ARE THE LEGAL SAFEGUARDS AVAILABLE IN THIS CASE?

Interfaith marriages have existed since times immemorial from Jodha Akbar marital alliance to high profile nuptial of Indira Priyadarshini and Feroz Jehangir Ghandy. However, a disconcerting trend that has recently been ensuing is the sensitization ,violence and intolerance centred around the modern nomenclature: "LOVE JIHAD".The state has framed several safeguards to protect Right to Life of citizens in his regard :
Judicial verdicts:
a. Lata Singh vs UP state,2004: Right to marry or choose one's life partner has been interpreted by the SC as an extension of Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Art 21.
b.Sarla Mudgal vs UoI,1995:SC criminalised SURREPTITIOUS FAKING CONVERSION to ISLAM to circumvent incrimination under IPC Section 494 along with Hindu Marriage act ,1955(that imposes monogamy on Hindus) without dissolution of first marriage under Hindu Marriage Act by leveraging Muslim provision of bigamy.
Legal Safeguards:
a.Special Marriages Act,1954 allows two persons processing different religions to get married and retain their religions.SC in Lata Singh vs UP state,2004 condemned Honour killing and directed the state to provide protection to such inter faith couples.
However certain concerns arise even after such safeguards:
a.Freedom of conscience(Art 25): Distinguishing between consensus and coercion becomes difficult for the court in cases of post marital religious conversions.Such conversions incite retaliatory GHAR WAPSI movements causing communal tensions.
b.In event of separation between an interfaith couple the woman is vulnerable to more social pariah than the man .
Way ahead:
a.Empowering women safeguards them from imposition of faith and religion.eg.Recent unconstitutionalsation of Talaq e biddat 
b.Implementation of SC directives in Lata Singh vs UP state,1995.
 CONCLUSION:Religion is a personal affair of an individual and should not be reduced to an imposition while or after exercise of one's right to marry.

Posted on by