In Adjudication in Religious Family Laws: Cultural Accommodation, Legal Pluralism, and Gender Equality in India, Gopika Solanki provides a convincing defence of the Indian policy of legal pluralism for governing marriage and divorce among Hindus and Muslims. The author contends that, by ‘‘split[ing] its adjudicative authority with social actors and organizations in the regulation of marriage and divorce among a sector of religious and caste group and the other actors’’ (p. 10), the Indian state simultaneously avoids leaning towards legal centralism and an essentialist version of legal pluralism. Solanki supports this claim with reference to state laws, societal laws, legal actors, and their interactions in formal and informal legal arenas. This ethnographically rich text begins by describing and explaining, a model of ‘shared adjudication’ (p. 10). The author contends that this model is unique to India. Founded on values of both state and customary law, this model focuses on state-society interactions and their relation to resolving conflicts in family, marriage and divorce. Although the state ‘‘does not relinquish its authority to govern the family’’ (p. 11), it shares the adjudicative authority with societal actors and institutions in order to avoid legal centralism. Similarly, even though the state recognizes both religious and customary laws—and provides an option to its citizen to opt out of religious laws—it avoids complete legal pluralism by expressively not establishing religious and customary courts and by enacting secular law to govern interreligious marriages. In Chapter 2, Solanki explains, how the dual functions of the shared adjudication model overcomes the classic state versus society/legal versus illegal dualism by opening up the possibility to make, unmake, or reform the fixed construction of religious memberships in diverse legal sites.