Women in Indian history have been influential leaders, scholars, reformers, and freedom fighters, from ancient figures like Gargi and warrior queens (Razia Sultan, Rani Lakshmibai, Velu Nachiyar) to modern icons like Indira Gandhi (first female PM) and Kalpana Chawla (first Indian woman in space), showcasing diverse roles in governance, education (Savitribai Phule), science, and social change, challenging narratives of historical confinement.
Legal Motherhood in English Law is primarily determined by gestation and birth, based on the principle mater semper certa est ("the mother is always certain"). Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the woman who gives birth to a child is legally recognized as the mother, regardless of biological connection. This legal framework conflates gestation with motherhood, treating the pregnant person as a mother from the moment of conception, despite the fetus lacking legal personhood.
Challenges to Traditional Legal Definitions arise from advances in reproductive technology and evolving family structures. Surrogacy, same-sex parenting, and multiple parenthood challenge the idea of a single, biologically defined mother. In India, the Supreme Court recently struck down a law that limited maternity leave to adoptions of children under three months, ruling that motherhood is not merely biological but also defined by care and responsibility, thus affirming the dignity of adoptive motherhood.
Feminist and Legal Critiques highlight that the legal construction of motherhood reinforces patriarchal norms by tying women’s identity and legal status to their reproductive capacity. This can limit autonomy, especially for pregnant people who do not intend to parent or who do not identify as women. The law often presumes that the gestating individual will be the caregiver, placing social and legal expectations on them that may not align with their personal choices.
International and Human Rights Perspectives emphasize special protection for motherhood and childhood. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. In the U.S., the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave, while the Affordable Care Act mandates break time and private space for nursing mothers. However, laws vary significantly by country, with some nations still restricting women’s labor rights or travel without spousal consent.
Legal Rights and Responsibilities for mothers include decision-making authority over a child’s education, religion, medical care, and residence. While custody is no longer automatically granted to mothers in divorce cases, the "best interests of the child" standard often results in mothers being recognized as primary caregivers. Adoptive and same-sex parents now have greater legal recognition, reflecting broader societal shifts toward inclusive definitions of parenthood.
Changing a wife's surname after a Hindu marriage isa deeply rooted patriarchal tradition symbolizing the blending of two families, signifying that the wife has become a part of her husband’s family and, traditionally, that they are now "one". It isnotlegally mandatory or required by Hindu law; it is a personal choice based on culture, convenience, or desire for a shared identity.
Key reasons for this practice include:
Cultural Tradition: It represents the bride’s transition from her paternal home to her new family.
Symbol of Unity: It acts as a symbolic, "sacred tie" connecting the couple.
Social Acceptance: It serves as a visible, social indicator of marriage, often reducing doubts about the couple's relationship status.
Administrative Convenience: Some believe it simplifies documentation (e.g., in joint bank accounts or for children's documents).
However, in modern times, many women choose to retain their maiden name, use a hyphenated name, or change it only for specific, formal documentation. It is fundamentally a choice, not a legal requirement.
Mere Tradition, Not Law
Surname change after marriage is not mandated by law in India. You find no clause or section asking you to do so. The courts have repeatedly clarified that a woman’s marital status stays the same whether she keeps her maiden surname, changes it or decides to hit undo later.
Advocate Likitha Avare, a Corporate Lawyer and Legal Advisor, says, “Whether or not a woman changes her surname after marriage has no bearing on the validity of the marriage. However, this can cause friction in terms of handling PF accounts, employment records, insurance policies, PAN, Aadhaar or passport records. Likitha goes on to add, “This is why women, especially working professionals, often feel scared and uncertain about what comes after marriage.” While legally one isn’t mandated to change one's surname, such practices have deep roots in tradition and patriarchal society. Even today, many Indian families insist that a woman take her husband’s surname as proof of marriage. Likitha says, “A Marriage Certificate, not merely changing your surname, is the strongest, legally recognised proof in India.”
A Personal Choice
Many women today feel it is a personal choice. “I think changing your surname after marriage is completely a personal choice,” says Ishita Aggarwal, a Chartered Accountant. She believes this is a decision that should be discussed and agreed upon by the partners involved. However, the wheels of change seem to be in motion. Many women today choose to retain their maiden name or add their husband’s surname to their existing one. Ishita says, “Adding or not adding a husband’s surname has nothing to do with devotion or love.”
She also points out that calling the practice a fad overlooks the reality that the name-change process is long and complicated. “Anyone who chooses to undertake it must be genuinely sure of it, and that certainty deserves respect,” she says.
Priyadashani Chimanchode, a Business Analyst at Mastercard, doesn’t mince words about the social pressure around women’s surnames. “Indian society is so obsessed with the idea of name change. It’s weird,” she says. She notes that neither her husband nor her in-laws ever asked her to change her name. In fact, her husband discouraged her and reminded her that she didn’t need to go through “the paperwork Olympics” just to prove she was married!
But the moment the couple went to get their marriage certificate, the mood shifted. Priya recalls how the official insisted, almost theatrically, that changing her name was mandatory. As per his logic, “It’s not appropriate according to our culture.” He warned Priya and her husband that it would be difficult for their kids in future. Priya describes it as ‘indirect emotional blackmail.’ Her family also goaded her to change her maiden surname. The whole experience was a bit overwhelming. “It’s wild,” she says, “how a simple form can turn into a morality lesson.”
Legal Bytes
Aashna Jain, a Legal Strategist, says, “None of the laws, including the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, mandate that a woman change her name.” Aashna explains that complications usually show up when different names appear in different documents. She ex-plains, “This then leads to excessive gazette notification changes, marriage certificate submissions to address a plethora of departments issuing each of these documents.” Aashna shares that she herself is married and has retained her maiden name, “Jain,” rather than adopting her husband’s surname, “Vyas.”
“This was a purposeful decision to maintain my individual identity and to demonstrate to myself and to my peers that women should no longer be treated as property,” she says. According to her, adding names from the husband’s family continues to push a patriarchal narrative, implying that a woman’s identity flows from her husband. “Women are free to choose and retain any name they wish,” she emphasises. Aashna points out that multiple high courts in India, including Bombay and Karnataka, have repeatedly clarified that changing a maiden name is not a legal requirement and that women cannot be forced to do so.
Advocate Likitha shares a few areas of caution for women to bear in mind post-marriage. She advises, “Changing your surname across all documents and maintaining uniformity would immensely help.”
She also warns that updating board certificates, such as CBSE, IB or HSC Board certificates, could prove to be a daunting task. Adv Likitha says, “Most of the State Boards are reluctant to make changes in names or surnames once a certificate is issued.” However, she reminds everyone that the law mandates such boards to issue the name change if other procedural conditions are fulfilled.
Advocate Likitha notes that many women may not be aware that if a woman has already adopted her husband’s surname, she would need a mandatory NOC from her husband to revert to her maiden name. She adds, “This issue is currently under challenge before the Delhi High Court, and a judgment is yet to be delivered.” Changing or retaining your maiden surname after marriage is no measure of love or loyalty. It is purely a matter of choice. Societal expectations cannot dictate identity, and legal systems only seem to be further supporting a woman’s autonomy. Respecting a woman’s choice is no longer optional. It is long overdue!
DAUGHTER OF GANPATRAO AMRITASWAR AND GUNGABAI JOSHEE.
Born in Poona, Bombay Presidency, India, March 31st, 1865. (Child-name, Yamuna Joshee.)
Married Gopalrao Vinayak Joshee, March 31st, 1874. (Wife-name, Anandibai Joshee.)
Sailed from Calcutta, India, for America, April 7th, 1883, being the first high-caste Brahman woman to come to the United States. Landed in New York, June 4th, 1883.
Graduated in medicine, from the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania, March 11th, 1886, being the first Hindu woman to receive the Degree of Doctor of Medicine in any country.
Appointed, June 1st, 1886, to the position of Physician-in-Charge of the Female Ward of the Albert Edward Hospital, in the City of Kolhapur, India.
Sailed from New York, to assume her duties in Kolhapur, October 9th, 1886.
Parsi theatreflourished in 19th and early 20th-century Madras (now Chennai), featuring lavish Hindi/Urdu musical productions in Esplanade tents, influencing local Tamil isai natakam with its melodrama, sets, and orchestra. Pioneered by troupes like Batliwala, the community later transitioned into owning iconic city cinemas, includingWellington, West End, andEros.
Key Aspects of Parsi Theatre in Madras:
Performance Venue & Style: Popular in the mid-19th century, shows were held in large tents at Esplanade maidan (near the High Court). They featured dramatic set changes, special effects, and popular songs, even though the Hindi/Urdu language was not understood locally.
Cultural Impact: Parsi theatre bridged the gap between British theater and emerging local Tamil drama, with local troupes adopting Parsi-style proscenium stages and, sometimes, the "Parsi" label for prestige.
Local Patronage: Performances were popular with local audiences and supported by elite patronage, including the Nawabs of Arcot.
Transition to Cinema: Parsi entrepreneurs (e.g., J.F. Madan, Rustam Gi Dorab Gi) shifted from theatre to cinema, establishing early venues like the West End (later Midland) and influencing the city's, cinema landscape, including theCasino Theatre and Eros Cinema in Adyar.
Prominent Parsi-run cinemas in Madras included:
Wellington & West End (Midland): Early 20th-century pioneers.
Eros (Adyar): 1960s, later a wedding hall, now an auto showroom.
Established in 1918 by Rustomji, a Parsi entrepreneur, the West End Theatre was one of the earliest cinema halls in Madras. It primarily showcased English films, catering to the city’s British expatriate community and elite Indian audience.
In the late 1940s, the theatre was acquired by A.K. Ramachandra Iyer, a respected patron of the arts. He renamed it Midland Theatrelate 1950s, under Ramachandra Iyer's management, Midland Theatre transitioned from English to Tamil films, aligning with the shifting tastes of Chennai’s growing local audience. In the 1980s, the theatre was purchased by noted actress and politician Jaya Prada, who renamed it Jaya Prada Theatre. It continued to operate under this name until the 2000s, when it ceased functioning as a cinema.
Midland had nothing to do with the Wellington which was built in 1918. A.K. Ramachandran bought the plot in 1929 and built the Midland in 1931. It stayed in the family and passed on to his son and eventually to his granddaughters. It only became the Jayapradha on its sale in 1984. And yes the Leo was built in 1976 behind the cinema.
There was another smaller theatre in the same compound called Leo, in addition to Midland. That became Theatre Raj after Rajbab
