Last Updated:
The HC held that the lower court had erred in dismissing the petition without a proper understanding of the law on conversion
Before the High Court, the couple argued that the subordinate court had failed to appreciate the circumstances in which their marriage was solemnised. File pic
The Madras High Court has set aside an Ambattur Subordinate Court order that refused to entertain a mutual-consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) on the ground that the wife was Muslim, holding that a person’s sincere conduct and intention to profess Hinduism is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the HMA.
The HC directed the lower court to restore the petition and decide it on its merits within four weeks.
Justice PB Balaji passed the order in a civil revision petition filed by a couple, K Krishnapriyan and Ayisha Siddiquawhose divorce plea under Section 13B of the HMA had been dismissed as not maintainable. The court below had relied on Section 2 of the Act, which restricts its application to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs and excludes Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and Jews. Since the wife’s name identified her as Muslim, the court held that the petition could not proceed.
Before the High Court, the couple argued that the subordinate court had failed to appreciate the circumstances in which their marriage was solemnised. The wife, while born to Muslim parents, had been brought up by her maternal grandmother, who was Hindu. The couple submitted that she had lived her entire life according to Hindu customs, married her husband in a Hindu temple, participated in Hindu rituals during the wedding, and always considered herself Hindu at the time of marriage.
They placed on record photographs of the temple wedding and a letter issued by the Secretary of Arulmighu Balamurugan Thirukoil at Mogappair West, Chennai, confirming that the marriage took place there on August 21, 2020. The divorce petition filed earlier before the lower court also described both parties as Hindus by religion and stated that they had married as per Hindu rites.
Relying on these materials, the petitioners argued that the subordinate court had conducted an unnecessary and intrusive inquiry into the wife’s religious identity despite clear evidence of her professing Hinduism. They also relied on a 1971 Supreme Court judgment in Perumal Nadar vs Ponnuswamiwhich held that formal rituals are not mandatory for conversion and that genuine intention accompanied by conduct is sufficient to establish that a person has adopted Hinduism.
Accepting these submissions, the High Court held that the wife’s conduct clearly demonstrated her conversion to Hinduism. Justice Balaji noted that the couple had participated in a Hindu wedding ceremony, invoked the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce, and consistently asserted that they were Hindus. In such circumstances, the court said, there was no basis for the subordinate court to reject the petition merely because the wife continued to use her original name.
The HC also observed that since the marriage had been performed as per Hindu rites, the couple had no legal remedy under the Special Marriage Act. Their only legally viable option was to seek dissolution under the Hindu Marriage Act, and denying them access to that remedy would result in an unreasonable barrier to ending the marriage.
Holding that the lower court had erred in dismissing the petition without a proper understanding of the law on conversion, the HC restored the mutual-consent divorce case and directed that it be decided within four weeks from the date of receipt of the High Court order.
With this, the civil revision petition filed by the couple was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
November 22, 2025, 02:19 IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
