Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Robert Hercules Skinner vs Lt. James R.R. Skinner on 2 March, 1937
Thus in case of a conversion there should be a change of heart and honest conviction in the tenets of new religion in lieu of tenets of the original religion. If a ceremony of conversion is gone into conscientiously after such an honest conviction, thee alone there is a conversion of faith or it can be said that a person is professing another religion. In case of conversion from one religion to another a strict proof is required and it cannot be easily interred. More so when a person converted denies even the factum of conversion. As to whether there in fact a conversion or not must depend on facts and circumstances of each case and not general rule can be laid down in that behalf."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjabrao vs Dr. D.P. Meshram on 26 October, 1964
It is not necessary that he should observe any particular rites or ceremony to be an orthodox believer in the religion, no Court can test or gauge sincerity of religious belief. It is sufficient if he professes Mohammedan religion in the sense that he accepts prophetic grant of Mohammedan (section 19, Chapter 2, page 19 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law). Thus the real test is of professing Mohammedan religion. As to when is the true import of the term profess fell for consideration of the Supreme Court in Punjabrao V. D. P. Meshram, of the said decision the Supreme Court has observed as under:
Abdur Rahim Undre vs Padma Adbur Rahim Undre on 30 January, 1982
In the case of Dr. Abdur Rahim Undre Vs. Smt. Padma Abdur Rahim Undre AIR 1982 Bombay 341, the Bombay High Court considered the question of conversion and held as under:
Javed & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 30 July, 2003
From the perusal of above Ayats it is abundantly clear that bigamy is not sanctified unless a man can do justice to orphans. The said Ayat mandates all Muslims men to 'deal justly with orphans and then they can marry women of their choice two or three or four but if they fear that they will not be able to deal justly with them then only one. We are of the view, that such a religious mandate has been given to all the Muslims for a greater social purpose. If a Muslim man is not capable of fostering his wife and children then he cannot be allowed the liberty to marry other women as that will be against the said Sura 4 -Ayat-3.This aspect of the matter should not vex our mind further as the same came up before the apex court as well in Javed And Others versus State of Haryana: AIR 2003 SC 3057 and therefore we conclude this aspect of the submission by referring to the words of the apex court in that decision, which are as follows:-
Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 17 January, 1977
40.In the case of Rev. Stainislaus Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 (1) SCC 677 Para 20 Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the constitutional validity of M.P. Dharma Swantantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 observed as under:
Ahmedabad Women Action Group (Awag) & ... vs Union Of India on 24 February, 1997
In fact, Sarla Mudgal's case was considered by this Court in Ahmedabad Women Action Group & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 573 and it was held that the question regarding the desirability of enacting a Uniform Civil Code did not directly arise in Sarla Mudgal's case.
Yogendra Pratap Singh vs Savitri Pandey & Anr on 19 September, 2014
"12. Furthermore, the respondent herein has been found guilty of an act of fraud. In opinion, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to be afforded to him. It is not necessary to dwell into the matter any further as recently in the case of Ram chandra Singh v. Savitri devi this Court has noticed :