Delhi District Court
Memo Of Parties vs Arun Yadav on 27 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SAMAR VISHAL CIVIL JUDGE OF (NORTH)
DISTRICT, AT TIS HAZARI COURTDELHI
Suit No. 58/10
Unique ID No. 02401C0327620101
Memo of Parties
Maryam Alam
W/o Arun Yadav
Daughter of Mahe Alam
R/o Abul Hassan House
Modh. Ali Road (Near Church)
Baradari, Moradabad, U.P.244001. .........Plaintiff
VERSUS
Arun Yadav
S/o Satyavir Singh
R/o House No.36R, Model Town
Rohtak, Haryana ..........Defendant
ORDER
This order will dispose off an application u/O XII R 6 CPC filed by the plaintiff.
Maryam Alam has filed this suit for declaration against Arun Yadav. The declaration is regarding their marriage as null &void.
Maryam Alam is the daughter of Mahe Alam resident of Abul Hassan House, Mohd. Ali Road (Near Church), Baradari, Moradabad, U.P244001. Arun Yadav is the son of Satyavir Singh, resident of House No.36R, Model Town, Rohtak, Haryana124001. Plaintiff is the Muslim by religion. Defendant Hindu. In Suit No. 58/10 1 July, 2006, the plaintiff and the defendant were contemplating their marriage and registration under Special Marriage Act, 1954. However, when it was revealed to them that notice regarding their intended marriage would be sent to their parents, they decided not to marry under Special Marriage Act. But since they had decided to marry, they had to discover some other methods of doing so and hence they nd decided to marry under Hindu Marriage Act. On 22 July, 2006, just to fulfill the requirements of Hindu Marriage Act and without any intention to convert, the plaintiff renounced her Muslim religion and embraced Hindu Religion at Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi110006 and also changed her name from Maryam Alam to Muskan. However, even after her marriage she professed Islam. Later on their marriage was solemnized on 24.7.2006 according to Hindu Rites, Customs & Ceremonies at Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal, 2115, Jamuna Bazar, Delhi06. After this both the parties applied for registration of their marriage and their marriage was registered under Special Marriage Act in Rohtak.
During the continuance of their marriage, on 4.11.2006, just to make the parents of the plaintiff (girl)happy and without any intention to convert or embrace Islam, the defendant embraced Islam and also changed his name from Arun Yadav to Zian. They again married under Muslim law and their marriage was performed by Maulana Qazi Riyazuddin Amini, 2709, Mohalla Niyarian, Behind G.B. Road, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi06 but later on he again changed his name to Arun Yadav. The plaintiff reconverted to Islam on 20.9.2009 in presence of Maulana Qazi Riyazuddin Amini, 2709 and also rechanged her name from Muskan to Suit No. 58/10 2 Maryam Alam. The parties resided together till August 2007 in Rohtak and no child was born from this wedlock.
Due to unavoidable circumstances, they decided to take divorce from each other and filed a joint petition for divorce through mutual consent. But it was withdrawn realizing that they will not succeed in proving the legality of their marriage in view of their admissions regarding their fraudulent conversion simply for the purpose of marriage. To get rid of the defendant and their previous marriage, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaring that the marriage performed by both of them under Hindu Marriage Act, under Muslim Law (Nikah) and registration certificate as null and void.
The defendant has not opposed this suit and has admitted the contents of the plaint by filing his written statement. Later on, the plaintiff has moved an application under order XII rule 6 CPC for decreeing the suit based on admissions in the written statement . The application was not opposed by the defendant. Arguments were heard.
Three reliefs are sought by the plaintiff in the present suit. Firstly, the relief of declaration that the marriage performed between the parties under Hindu Marriage Act on 24.7.2006 as null and void. Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act provides that the marriage under this act can be solemnized only between two Hindus. Plaintiff was initially a Muslim by religion and later on she converted into Hindu religion. It is averred by her that her conversion was only for the sake of marriage and she has no bonafide intention to convert or to abandon her religion. Her subsequent conduct also shows that her conversion was malafide and was Suit No. 58/10 3 only for the purpose of solemnizing her marriage under Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that the conversion was a pretended conversion only for the purpose of solemnizing marriage which is not permissible under the law. This conversion was a colored conversion and was effected with intention to commit a fraud upon the law and I am of the view that the conversion according to her own admission was nullity in the eyes of the law. No person who is not a Hindu can marry under Hindu Marriage Act and since the conversion by her own admission was malafide, it is declared that the marriage performed on 24.7.2006 was null and void and was solemnised just to defeat the provisions of the law.
Now I come to marriage performed by the parties under Muslim Law. It is averred that the defendant later on converted into Islam to make her wife i.e. plaintiff happy and without any intention to embrace Islam. This fact has been admitted by the defendant. This subsequent conduct of reconversion into Hindu religion on 13.11.2006 also endorse and fortify the averments of plaintiff and consequent admission of defendant that the conversion was fraudulent. It has been held in the case of Lili Thomas Vs. Union of India 2000 AIR SC 1650 that "Religion is a matter of faith stemming from the depth of the heart and mind. Religion is a belief which binds the spiritual nature of man to a supernatural being; it is an object of conscientious devotion, faith and pietism. Devotion in its fullest sense is a consecration and denotes an act of worship. Faith in the strict sense constitutes firm reliance on the truth of religious doctrines in every system of religion. Religion, faith or devotion are not easily interchangeable. If the person feigns to have adopted another Suit No. 58/10 4 religion just for some worldly gain or benefit, it would be religious bigotry. Looked at from this angle, a person who mockingly adopts another religion where plurality of marriage is permitted so as to renounce the previous marriage and desert the wife, he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his exploitation as religion is not a commodity to be exploited. The institution of marriage under every personal law is a sacred institution. Under Hindu Law, Marriage is a sacrament. Both have to be preserved ".
Although this judgment was given to restrain any Hindu husband from marrying more than one wife by fraudulently converting into Islam but the ratio is very clear that the religion is not be used for personal gains. If the defendant had the bonafide intention of marrying the plaintiff by converting into Muslim religion, the intention should have been clear and bona fide. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the conversion of the defendant into Muslim religion and their consequential Nikah was simply an act to please the wife as well as her parents and there was no bonafide intention to abandon his previous religion of Hinduism.
Under the Muslim law, a Muslim girl cannot marry any man who does not belong to Muslim religion. A woman is completely barred from marrying non Muslim and their marriages are void. The conversion of the defendant was mala fide. It appears that he was Hindu by his faith at the time of performing Nikah and both the parties have committed fraud upon the pious institution of marriage. It is clear that their marriage under the Muslim law was also null and void and is so declared.
As far as the third relief is concerned regarding the declaration of the Suit No. 58/10 5 marriage certificate as null and void, this Court do not have any territorial jurisdiction to declare this registration certificate as null and void. The parties never solemnized their marriage under Special Marriage Act and therefore, this marriage certificate could not have been issued under that act and since their marriage was registered in Rohtak, they could have approached the Court in Rohtak to get that certificate declared null and void.
On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the application u/O 12 R 6 CPC is partially allowed declaring the marriage of the parties solemnized on 24.7.2006 and Nikah on 4.11.2006 as null and void. No declaration can be given regarding the marriage certificate. The application is disposed off accordingly.
Announced in the open Court SAMAR VISHAL
On 27.08.2010 Civil JudgeII
(North)/Delhi
27.08.2010.
Suit No. 58/10 6
27.08.2010 Suit No.58/10
Vide separate order, an application u/O 12 R 6 CPC has been partially allowed.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Samar Vishal) Civil Judge II North/Delhi.
Suit No. 58/10 7