Dear Sir,
One thing is clear that Article25 doesn’t have much role here. I request to analyse this case from hindu Marriage act 1955. According to HMA 1955 U/S 13 (ii) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by
either thehusband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground
that the other party has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.
However, you raised one point, mere renouncing hinduism, dosen’t amount to ceased to hindu. Because girl did not reconvert to christianity.
In this case, later I got to know some more information. Initially girl had tried a lot to convert boy in chrisitianity. Boy had very deep root of faith in hinduism. Boy had declined to convert to christianity. Girl had approached many churches for marriage, but they were not agreed to marriage , without baptism of boy in to christianity.
Then girl had decided to embrace hinduism just for marriage, just for namesake. Girl had decided for traditional marriage in social way,just to get social approval of her marriage. Because , court marriages are still looked down upon in our society.
Before embracing hinduism and tradtional hindu marriage, girl had promised boy that she will completely follow hinduism and she had discarded her previous religion ( chriastianity).
After marriage , girl did not kep her promise, she not only started following christianity but also started insulting hindu traditions and god/godess. This attitude of girl created tension in family.
I want to qout some court judgemnet relevant to this case:
In the case of Lily thomas vs. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 para 39 Supreme court observed that if a person feign to have adopted another religion just for some worldly gain or benefit, it woud be a religious bigotry. For example a person mockingly adopt 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 the advantage of this exploitation as religion is not a commodity to be exploited
In perumal Nadar ( dead) by legal representative vs. Ponnuswami nadar (Minor) AIR 1971 SC 2352 it was held by the apex court as under:-
“ a person may be hindu by birth or by conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the hindu faith by person born in another religion doesnot convert him/ her to hindu nor is bare declaration that he/she is hindu sufficient to convert him to hinduism.but a bona fide intention to be convert to the hindu faith.
In case of Faheem ahmed vs. Maviya @ Laxmi (2009) MAT. APP. 13/2009. High court of Delhi observed that
“ There can not be any diverenge of opinion that in certain situation one of the parties to marriage belonging to one religion can take a decision to embrace the religion of other party but however such a conversion should not be undertaken merely to achieve the purpose of marriage , it should be done to embrace the new religion with a will and desire to completely follow the tenets of new religion while simultaneously forsaking the tenets of religion being professed by a person prior thereto”.
Based on the above stated court judgement, my opinion is that Girl has commited religious bigottery . because she adoptedd the hindu religion just for marriage.
Secondly it is also clear that just to remain hindu,one has to profess hinduism, not just theoretical allegiance.
Now I invite the comments of all respected members in this case. How those above stated cases are fitted in this case.
Another way of tackling this case is always open which is to have discussion through elder members.
But my purpose is to know the legal view of this case.
Kindly give your opinions
Thanks and regards
Rajeev
