Religious Conversion Just For The Purpose Of Marriage Is Unacceptable: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition as the court noted that the girl was a muslim and she converted to hinduism for the purpose of marriage.

A writ petition was filed by a newly married couple (the girl was a muslim by birth and she has converted her religion to hinduism, just a month before the marriage was solemnized) seeking police protection however, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition saying that it is not inclined to interfere in the matter under 226 of Constitution of India. Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi referred to a 2014 judgement in Noor Jahan Begum[1], in which the issues was “whether conversion of religion of a hindu girl at the instance of a muslim boy, without any knowlegde of islam or faith and belief in islam and merely for the purpose of marriage is valid?”. The judge held that conversion just for the purpose of marriage is unacceptable. Even in the case of Lily Thomas’s[2], the Supreme Court observed that, “A conversion of religion by an individual to islam can be said to be bonafide if he/she major and of sound mind and embraces islam by his/her own freewill and becuase of his/her faith and belief in the oneness of god and prophetic charcavter of Mohamed. If a conversion is not inspired by religion feeling and undergone for its own sake, but is restored merely with the object of creating a ground for some claim of right or as a device adopted for the purpose to avoid marriage or to achieve an object without the faith and belief in the unity of god and Mohamed to be his prophet, the conversion shall not be bonafide. In case of a religion 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.”

However, some single benches have granted police protection to the couples and the condition is also seen to be imposed to apply for registration of their marriage in accordance with the provisions of The Special Marriage Act, 1954.


[1] Anjali Mishra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

[2] Lily Thomas v. Union of India

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This Content is Protected.