Conduct demonstrating conversion can suffice for invoking Hindu Marriage Act provisions even without formal ceremonies.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

1. The revision petitioners are husband and wife. The revision petitioners decided to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and presented a petition under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (in short 'Act') before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambattur. The said O.P. was numbered as HMOP. No.77 of 2024. However, when the O.P was taken up for final hearing, the Court, finding that the 2nd wife/ petitioner was a Muslim, therefore, posted the case for arguments on maintainability. Not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Sub Judge, relying on Section 2 of the Act, held that the Act would apply only to persons who are Hindus by religion, or Buddhist, or Jain, or Sikh and domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends and such person not being Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Jew by religion, dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

2. I have heard Mr.V.M.Venkatramana, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that though the second revision petitioner viz., the wife was a Muslim by birth, she has married the first petitioner in accordance with Hindu customs and rites, the marriage itself being solemnized at Arulmighu Balamurugan Temple, Mogappair West, Chennai. He would therefore state that the learned Sub Judge, Ambattur failed to advert his attention to the fact that when the second petitioner never claims to be a Muslim, but only a Hindu at the time of their marriage and the marriage also having been solemnized in a manner acceptable and permissible under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, there was nothing improper for the petitioners to approach the Court invoking Section 13 (B) of the Act or muchless, any of the other provisions of the .

4. It is also the specific case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the father and mother of the second petitioner were Muslims by religion, the second petitioner’s Maternal grandmother was only a Hindu by religion and the second petitioner herself was brought up only as per Hindu customs and traditions and therefore, by express conduct of the second petitioner, the second petitioner has converted herself to Hinduism, though there is no formal records of such conversion. He would however state that the very fact that the second petitioner has undergone the marriage ceremonies in accordance with Hindu rites and customs would be sufficient to accept the plea of the second petitioner that she has professed Hinduism at the time of her marriage. The learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on the marriage photographs as well as letter issued by the Secretary, A/M. Sri Balamurugan Thirukoil Trust, Mogappair West, Chennai which confirms the solemnization of the wedding of the petitioners in the said Temple.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also invites my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal Nadar (Dead) by L.R.S Vs. Ponnuswami, reported in, AIR 1971 2352, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows, “a person may be Hindu by birth or 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 bonafide intention to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention would be sufficient evidence of conversion” and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “no formal ceremony of purification or expiration is necessary to effectuate conversion”.

6. Relying on the said decision,