Originally posted by: UKGirl22
Very few cultures have weddings ceremonies that even without registration would be recognised in a court of law. India is exceptional in that way - and the main reason why the concept of registration under the civil code was even introduced in India historically was because many Hindu wedding were not recognised when people applied for international visas.
I kind of assumed that a wedding is a wedding and having this Daaga wedding versus wedding in front of everyone else is a itv thing and not a real concept. Like if one of you went and did a daaga wedding with out boyfriends - what would happen next?
This is where the basic difference between legal and traditinal/ ritualistic comes in. Technically neither a dhaaga marriage, nor a marriage in a mandap with a priest would be recognized by the law. You can't, as you said apply for a visa as a dependent spouse based on a wedding photo. And i guess that holds true almost the world over.
But a ceremonial wedding has more of an emotional value I suppose. It's years and centuries of tradition and customs which are believed to have power. It all comes down to faith isn't it. As for a dhaaga wedding with a boyfriend, what would've happened if I had married my husband in a temple with just the two of us instead of a function where half the city was present? Nothing I suppose. Neither is valid without a marriage certificate in a court of law. The sticking point is we wanted to get married to each other and spend our lives together and that's what counts. And that's what counts as a wedding isn't it. Coz if all it took to get married was walk around a fire and repeat mantras, then parth samthaan is married to Hina khan coz these two did that. Long, long answer short, legally it's registration that matters and emotionally its the promise that matters.. The rest is just one big ass costly function!
