Conduct, Not Ceremony, Defines Religion for Divorce, Rules Madras High Court

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that a person's unequivocal conduct demonstrating an intention to convert to Hinduism is sufficient for them to be considered a Hindu under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even without a formal conversion ceremony. Justice P.B. Balaji set aside a lower court's order that had dismissed a mutual divorce petition filed by a couple, where the wife was a Muslim by birth but had married under Hindu rites.

Background of the Case

The case involved K. Krishnapriyan and Aayisha Siddiqua, who married in a Hindu temple, the Arulmighu Balamurugan Temple in Chennai, on August 21, 2020. The couple later decided to part ways amicably and jointly filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) before the Sub Court at Ambattur.

However, the Sub Court Judge, noting the wife's Muslim name, questioned the maintainability of the petition. Citing Section 2 of the HMA, which states the Act applies only to Hindus and not to Muslims, Christians, Parsis, or Jews, the lower court dismissed the petition. The couple then challenged this dismissal before the Madras High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioners' counsel, Mr. V.M. Venkataramana, argued that the lower court had erred by focusing solely on the wife's birth religion. He submitted that although born a Muslim, the wife was raised with Hindu customs, her maternal grandmother being a Hindu. Crucially, she married the petitioner in a Hindu temple according to Hindu rites and customs.

The counsel contended that by this express conduct, she had converted to Hinduism. He asserted that when both parties consciously invoke the Hindu Marriage Act for their divorce, the court should not conduct a "roving enquiry" into their religion based on a name.

Legal Precedent and Court's Reasoning

Justice Balaji found significant merit in the petitioners' arguments, heavily relying on a Supreme Court precedent, Perumal Nadar (Dead) by L.R.S Vs. Ponnuswami (1971) . Quoting the apex court, he noted:

> “a bonafide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention would be sufficient evidence of conversion… no formal ceremony of purification or expiration is necessary to effectuate conversion.”

Applying this principle, the High Court observed that the wife's actions—marrying in a temple as per Hindu rituals and subsequently seeking relief under the HMA—were clear evidence of her conversion to the Hindu faith. The court reviewed marriage photographs and a confirmation letter from the temple trust, which substantiated the petitioners' claims.

Justice Balaji stated, "The second petitioner, by express conduct, in participating in the marriage solemnization in accordance with Hindu rights and customs and also approaching the Family Court invoking the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has sufficiently shown that the second petitioner has converted herself to Hindu faith."

The court further pointed out the legal quandary the couple would face otherwise, as they would not be able to seek divorce under the Special Marriage Act either. "The only remedy for the petitioners is to seek dissolution of the marriage invoking the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955," the order read.

Final Decision

The Madras High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the Sub Court's order of dismissal. Justice Balaji remitted the matter back to the Sub Court at Ambattur, directing it to decide the mutual divorce petition on its merits within four weeks. This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that in matters of religious conversion for the purpose of personal law, demonstrated intent and consistent conduct hold greater weight than formal ceremonies or birth names.