Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.6, amongst others, a preliminary objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction has been raised contending that conversion certificate (Annexure P/3) issued to corpus Ms. Hina Khan and marriage certificate (Annexure P/4) issued to corpus and the petitioner are by respondent no.6/Vivah Mandir located at Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) and, therefore, no cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court for subjecting respondent no.6 to its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though there is no averment in the return, however, oral submission was made that respondent no.6 is a Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882. It is further submitted that Ms. Hina Khan D/o Istaq Khan, as per her Aadhar Card since is major, she is free to profess and practice any religion she wants under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. She had submitted an affidavit (Annexure R/4) before the President/Secretary of respondent no.6-Trust that she had converted herself into Hindu religion and also that she intended to marry the petitioner out of her free will and based on such affidavit, conversion certificate (Annexure P/3) and marriage certificate (Annexure P/4) have been issued. It is further submitted that respondent no.6 - a registered Trust, by virtue of its Aims and Objects particularly clause "O", is entitled for arranging marriage ceremonies according to Vedic and Hindu rites and customs. Hence, no exception can be taken to her conversion to Hindu, certificate whereof has been issued by respondent no.6. Likewise, no exception can be taken to the marriage between the two as certified by respondent no.6.

With the the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 prayed that no fault can be found either in conversion of Ms. Hina Khan to Hindu religion nor to the issuance of conversion certificate (Annexure P/3) and marriage certificate (Annexure P/4) by respondent no.6.

7. Shri M.P.S.Ragvhuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General made following submissions:-

(1) Petitioner and corpus Ms.Hina Khan are admittedly residents of Pichhore, District Shivpuri. Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by Additional District Magistrate and Mukhya Sanchetak, One Stop Centre, Shivpuri dated 6/9/2021 (Annexure P/1). An FIR has been registered at Police Station Pichhore, District Shivpuri at Crime No. 382/2019 on 17/9/2019 with regard to missing of Ms. Hina Khan with allegation of abduction by petitioner. Petitioner has filed this petition with the description that Ms. Hina Khan holds a certificate of conversion (Annexure P/3) from Muslim religion to Hindu religion issued by respondent no.6 and likewise both of them have marital status by virtue of marriage certificate (Anenxure P/4) issued by respondent no.6.

(6) The Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937, under section 2 provides for validation of marriage between two Arya Samajists and not the marriage of the kind in question, where on the one hand conversion certificate is issued to Ms. Hina Khan converting her from Muslim to Hindu religion and on the same day, marriage certificate was issued without declaration and verification that both of them are Arya Samajists. (7) The alleged act of conversion and marriage, in fact, are classic instances of fraud and mis-representation alluring the ignorant young boys and girls with issuance of illegal certificates of conversion and marriage. It is a public wrong and a serious threat to public order and social fabric of the country. As such, respondent no.6 has made itself liable for penal action under section 464, IPC.

(Emphasis supplied) In the above said backdrop, it is well nigh clear that this Court, indeed, has jurisdiction against respondent no.6 in the instant case and thus its objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction pales into insignificance, accordingly rejected.

11. In the instant case, respondent no.6/Vivah Mandir has issued conversion certificate of Ms. Hina Khan from Muslim religion to Hindu as Annexure P/3 and marriage certificate of petitioner and Ms. Hina Khan as Annexure P/4. The Trust Deed (Annexure R/1) enlists twelve aims and objects and the one that comes a bit close to the aforementioned acts of respondent no.6, is only Clause "o" which declares to arrange marriage ceremonies according to the Vedic and Hindu rites and customs. The act of issuing conversion certificate is certainly way beyond the aims and objects of the respondent no.6/Trust. Further, from the Trust Deed (Annexure R/1), it is apparent that the Trust does not have any bylaws empowering it to conduct such conversions or issue such certificates. That apart, issuance of conversion and marriage certificates by respondent no.6 only on the strength of affidavit of Ms. Hina Khan without verification of relevant facts even in the wake of a criminal case registered against the petitioner at Police Station Pichhore, District Shvpuri, definitely come within the realm of suspicious and vulnerable activities apparently carried out for collateral purposes. Besides, it cannot be lost sight of that petitioner and the corpus are both domicile of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, the said act of issuing conversion certificate is also in stark violation of section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 that mandates intimation to the District Magistrate and also entails penal provision for its violation under sub-section (2). So far as issuance of marriage certificate (Annexure P/4) is concerned, clause "o", as indicated above, only talks of arranging marriage ceremonies according to hindu rites and customs and not performing/solemnizing them to issue marriage certificates. The Authorities empowered under an enactment or Rules are only competent to issue marriage certificates like those under the Special Marriage Act and Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules. There is no provision for issuance of marriage certificates under the Hindu Marriage Act. The said Act recognizes rituals and ceremonies as legal sanctions for performance of marriage as per Saptapadi (Kindly see Ss.5 & 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act). There is no averment in the petition with regard to observance of such necessary rituals. Further, neither there is any evidence nor statement on affidavit that petitioner and Ms. Hina Khan are Arya Samajists, making the marriage vulnerable in terms of S.2 of the Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937. It is also relevant to mention that the Apex Court vide interim order dated 17/12/2021 passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 5315/2022 has directed strict adherence to the guidelines set out from page nos. 34 to 40 (Annexure P/5), guideline 9 whereof clearly lays down that information regarding solemnization of every marriage in writing must be sent to the Madhya Bhartiya Arya Pratinidhi Sabha within 7 days from the date of solemnization of marriage. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that either respondent no.6/Vivah Mandir is affiliated to or recognized by Madhya Bharat Arya Pratinidhi Sabha or had sent intimation to it in terms of guideline 9 above. Not only this, there is no averment to the effect that the said marriage has been registered either in Madhya Pradesh in compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriage Rules, 2008, or for that matter, in Uttar Pradesh under Rule 4 of the Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1973.