How to prove that particular person was converted in to Hindu Religion?

In this regard, the learned counsel for respondent/husband placed reliance mainly upon the 3-Judges Bench expression of the Apex Court in Perianal Nadar (Dead) By Lrs. v. Ponnuswami MANU/SC/0361/1970 : AIR 1971 SC 2352, leave about the other expression of Kerala High Court in In. Re: Betsy and Sadanandan MANU/KE/1087/2009 : 2009 (4) KLT 631, in saying intention to convert is enough, in paras-6 to 9 in the controversy as to the wife converted from Christianity to Hinduism, which reads thus:

"6. It is not necessary to decide in this case whether marriage between a Hindu male and an Indian Christian female may be regarded as valid, for, in our judgment, the finding of the Courts below that Annapazham was converted to Hinduism before her marriage with Perumal is amply supported by evidence. A person may be a Hindu by birth or by conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu faith by a person born in another faith does not convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration that he is a Hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism. But a bona fide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of conversion. No formal ceremony of purification or expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion.

7. In Muthusami Mndaliar v. Masilamani alias Subramania Mudaliar I.L.R. 33 Mad. 342 the validity of a marriage according to Hindu rites between a Hindu and a Christian woman fell to be determined. It was held that the marriage contracted according to Hindu rites by a Hindu with a Christian woman, who before marriage is converted to Hinduism, is valid, though the marriage was not in strict accordance with the Hindu system of law. Such a marriage is still common among and recognised as valid by the custom of the caste to which the man belongs.

8. In Goona Durgaprasada Rao and another v. Goona Sudarasanaswami and others MANU/TN/0295/1939 : I.L.R. [1940] Mad. 653 Mockett, J., observed that no gesture or declaration may change a man's religion, but when on the facts it appears that a man did change his religion and was accepted by his co- religionists as having changed his religion and lived and died in that religion, absence of some formality cannot negative what is an actual fact.Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., observed that a Hindu who had converted himself to the Christian faith returned to Hinduism and contracted a second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife and remained and died a Hindu having been accepted as such by the community and co-religionists without demur. Absence of evidence of rituals relating to conversion cannot justify the Court in treating him as having remained a Christian.

9. The evidence clearly establishes that the parents of Annapazham arranged the marriage. The marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of relatives who were invited to attend : customary ceremonies peculiar to a marriage between Hindus were performed : no objection was raised to the marriage and after the marriage Annapazham was accepted by the local Hindu Nadar community as belonging to the Hindu faith, and the plaintiff was also treated as a Hindu. On the evidence there can be no doubt that Annapazham bona fide intended to contract marriage with Perumal. Absence of specific expiatory or purificatory ceremonies will not, in our judgment, be sufficient to hold that she was not converted to Hinduism before the marriage ceremony was performed. The fact that Perumal chose to go through the marriage ceremony according to Hindu rites with Annapazham in the presence of a large number of persons clearly indicates that he accepted that Annapazham was converted to Hinduism before the marriage ceremony was performed."

19. No doubt, from the above expression, no particular ceremony is required and bona fide intention to convert is enough followed by faith and belief in Hinduism for the respondent besides being accepted by the local Hindu community and treatment of him as Hindu to say that he has converted. Here that evidence is lacking, apart from his say of not any bonafide intention to convert, but for unwillingly and only to marry the petitioner for a condition stated imposed of conversion to fulfill and not even stated lived as Hindu. 
Thus, at the cost of repetition from what was discussed earlier, when his version is he was as fell in love with her, made to convert as Hindu by adoption to a Hindu family by made to convert; there from there was no voluntary conversion apart from no adoption validly taken place and there was nothing to show any alleged conversion of him besides voluntary with any faith in Hinduism which is the religion of the petitioner, to validate any ceremonies of marriage, not even adduced any evidence of he was accepted as a Hindu by the neighbourhood and the community of Hindus nearby and observing any faith in Hinduism without which there is no valid conversion is the law laid down in Perumal Nadar (supra) and there is no valid conversion from Muslim religion to Hindu religion, the very marriage itself is void ab initio for he is not a Hindu by the time of marriage, and it is a material fact or circumstance relating to him as per Section 12(1)(c) of the H.M. Act to annul the marriage otherwise as per the expression of the Apex Court in Gullapalli Sowria Raj (supra).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 2014

Decided On: 29.09.2015

 Shaik Mahammad Rati

Vs.

 Grandhi Poorna Seetha Manoja

Coram:

R. Subhash Reddy and Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, JJ.

Citation:2017(1) ALLMR(JOURNAL)84

Print Page

When maintenance can not be denied to wife on the ground that she was not converted in to Hinduism prior to her marriage?

 According to the
defence raised by the non-applicant that the applicant was not converted
into Hindu before the marriage and therefore, the marriage was invalid. If
in this context, the provisions of Section 4 of Special Marriage Act, 1954
are examined. Section 4 in Chapter-II of Special Marriage Act, 1954
prescribes with a non-obstinate clause that a marriage between two
persons may be solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, if neither
party has spouse living for incapable of giving consent to it in the
consequence of unsoundness of mind or though capable of giving a valid
consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such
an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children and
subject to recurrent attacks of insanity and if the male has completed the
age of twenty-one years and the female the age of eighteen years, or
when the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship, then
the marriage can be solemnized.
Herein this case, admittedly there was no shadow of such restrictions
between the parties to solemnize marriage. Only factor pleaded by the
non-applicant that the religion were different i.e. Hindu and Muslim.
Though the applicant has stated to have solemnized the marriage after
conversion even if such statements are sidelined, the provisions of the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 will govern the parties. Meaning thereby the
defence raised by the non-applicant may not be available to him qua
proceeding U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. It is not inconsistent to add that Special
Marriage Act, 1954 do not contemplate the effect of non-registration of

marriage under the Act. So consequence having not been provided for
non-registration and if the registration of marriage is held to be mandatory,
the object of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 would be defeated. So under
the given set of facts, even if the pleadings of non-applicant is admitted,
that parties belonged to different religion i.e. one Hindu and one Muslim,
the status of applicant can not be denied that of wife.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No. 544 of 2013

Smt. Shikha Majumdar &
Another
VERSUS

Anutosh Majumdar
[Criminal Revision Under Section 19(4) Of The Family Court Act, 1984]
SB: Hon’ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, J.

(Delivered on 24th December, 2014)
Citation;2015 CRLJ(NOC)193 Chhatis

Print Page

Whether Right of wife to claim maintenance from her husband is lost if husband renounce Hinduism?

 Reliance placed by Mr. Goel on V. Tulasamma and others vs. Sehsa Reddy (Dead) by L.Rrs. : [1977] 3 SCR 261 is wholly misplaced. The question which arose for consideration therein was the nature or the right, a widow acquires in the property in which she had been in possession in lieu of maintenance. Interpreting sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act this Court held that the term "possessed" should receive a wide meaning. It is in this context this Court noticed the authorities from Sastric Hindu Law whereupon our attention has been drawn :-

"Similar observations have been made by the learned author at p. 528 of the book which may be extracted thus: 'According to both the schools, the lawfully wedded wife acquires from the moment of her

marriage a right to the property belonging to the husband at the time and also to any popery that may subsequently be acquired by him. so that she becomes a co-owner of the husband, though her right is not co-equal to that of the husband, but a subordinate one. owing to her disability founded on her status of perpetual or life long tutelage or dependence.

...

This right of the wife to maintenance from

her husband is not lost even if the husband

renounce Hinduism.

This right subsists even after the husband's death although her husband's right as distinguished from hers may pass by survivorship or by

succession to sons or even to collaterals; these simply step into the position of her husband, and she is required by Hindu law to live under their guardianship after her husband's death.' "1

Supreme Court of India

Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And ... on 14 March, 2008

Bench: S Sinha, V Sirpurkar

Print Page