By Bhavya Bhardwaj
Indian society is deeply patriarchal. But be that as it may, it is also a society that has absorbed into its own culture and customs laws received from other jurisdictions.
Hence we are bestowed with the gift of marriage under the Constitution. Therefore, any marriage so contracted under the Act is statutory and must be governed by the laws that created the same.
While issues of divorce or inheritance are largely in direct consonance with the marriage contracted by parties involved, the issue of name-taking or name changing finds no strength under the Marriage Act or any other laws in India. Hence a woman taking up her husband’s name remains a matter of choice and/or of custom.
Generally, in India and in some other cultures, women are simply expected to take up the name of their husband upon marriage. It is taken as a given that she will change her last name, or in some communities, her first name too after marriage.
There are many reasons, one of which is the uniformity it creates in the identity of the parties. In some cultures, the husband assumes the role of legal guardian of a woman and so the woman “must” bear his name.
It is interesting to note the absurd double standard here – the onus of proving fidelity, commitment and a whole bunch of other moral responsibilities are placed only on the woman. Never for a moment is the husband’s fidelity or commitment brought into question.
With changing times, many women are not taking the names of their husbands.
For some women, it is simply a matter of convenience. Their names have been reflected on so many documents and accounts that it would be very tedious to go through with this change legally.
Some women choose to retain their family names to maintain the link to their family, especially in situations where all the children in that family are female, for example, the Kardashian sisters, who adopted a compound name to maintain their family identity.
Others choose to keep their family name due to the reputation attached to it and may add it as a prefix to their husband’s name.
When the majority of folks here believe it is “only proper and right” for a woman to take up her husband’s name, that a failure to do so supposedly implies a lack of commitment on her part to the marriage, it perpetuates a culture of policing a woman’s decision in this matter. It overlooks all social and personal boundaries in the process and seeks to somehow guilt the woman if she goes against its expectation.
The most recent example of it being actress Deepika Padukone’s. She defied the “two shall become one at the cost of the woman’s identity” doctrine.
For Padukone, her name is her identity, and as she says and is well evident, something she has worked very hard to establish. But of course, it didn’t stop people on the internet from giving their two cents regarding how inappropriate they deemed her decision to be.
It is dangerous for any woman to lose her identity to marriage. You are a force unto yourself. Name taking or not doesn’t change these truths.
That said, people should also support a woman’s choice to change her surname for whatever reason. People may think the reason is silly, but she should have the liberty to do what she wants with her surname.
Because either way, it is her decision. Because to respect her decision is to respect her.
Conscientia 