KUMARI SHINAY GUPTA Vs. MOHD KALEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17th March 2008 passed by learned ADJ whereby she dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner Kumari Shinay Gupta was in love with a Muslim boy Mohd. Kaleem (the respondent herein ). This love affair culminated into marriage between the parties. However, before solemnization of marriage Mohd. Kaleem changed his religion and became a Hindu at Arya Samaj Temple and after changing the religion, got married with the petitioner as per Hindu rites at the same Arya samaj Temple. The photographs of the marriage are on record. It seems that after the marriage, the petitioner went to her parents' house and she never returned to her matrimonial house. A petition for declaration of marriage between parties as null and void was filed. During pendency of the this petition, an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC was filed by the petitioner alleging therein that the changing of religion by the petitioner was merely a make-believe act as the respondent had changed his religion on the same very day on which the marriage was solemnized between the parties. The act of change of religion was not bonafide and the respondent continued to be a Muslim. Consequently, the marriage performed between a Hindu girl (petitioner) and a Muslim boy (respondent) as per Hindu rites in temple was illegal and a void marriage. It is submitted by the petitioner that since the fact about the conversion from Muslim religion to Hindu religion on the same day was not denied, therefore, the application under Order 12 Rule 6 declaring the marriage null and void should be allowed.

(3.) THE entire case of the plaintiff hinges on the plea that the solemnization of marriage as per Hindu rites and customs was void because the defendant was not a Hindu at the time of marriage. This fact has been controverted by the defendant in the proceedings before the court below and before this Court also. The learned trial court observed that there was no admission unequivocal, unqualified and unambiguous on the part of the defendant on the basis of which the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree and the trial court dismissed the application.