The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence in cases of alleged forcible conversion and highlights the absence of a legal provision for preferential claim to a deceased's body.

Abhay M. Naik, J.

1. A rare demand for handing over the dead body of the deceased Praveen Kumar Balotiya has been made by the parents and brothers of the deceased in order to enable them to perform funeral of the deceased according to Hindu religion with an allegation that he was wrongly cremated on account of alleged conversion to Christianity. A direction has also been sought for prosecution of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on the ground that their conduct allowed the last rites of the deceased to be performed by cremation according to another religion.

2. Briefly stated facts are that Praveen Kumar Balotiya, a Hindu by religion was married to Benzaliv (respondent No. 8) on 10-9-2004. On 26-2-2006 Baptism was performed on him and he was converted to Christianity. On 18-4-2008 Praveen Kumar Balotiya died. It is alleged that due to intervention of Police, the dead body of Praveen Kumar Balotiya was allowed to be cremated according to Christian customs. It is alleged that during his lifetime, Praveen Kumar Balotiya as well as his wife were following customs of Hindu religion. Cremation was made according to Christian religion due to the intervention of police who allowed it to be cremated on the ground that the wife of the deceased had the first right over the dead body. It is stated that the factum of alleged conversion of Praveen Kumar Balotiya to Christianity was not intimated to the District Magistrate as required under section 5 of M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968. According to the petitioners it amounted to forcible conversion which is prohibited by virtue of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder.

3. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and 9 submitted their separate returns. They contended that Praveen Kumar Balotiya accepted conversion to Christianity voluntarily as per his own will and faith. There was no forcible conversion. Accordingly, his dead body was rightly cremated as per Christian religion and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned Counsel for parties made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of the record and the law governing the situation.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that Praveen Kumar Balotiya did not repose faith in Christianity. Praveen Kumar Balotiya was Hindu by birth and was follower of Hindu religion. He did not wish conversion at any point of time and was in fact not converted. Conversion in the absence of any intimation as per section 5 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam, means forcible conversion, therefore, his dead body is liable to be delivered to petitioners for funeral purpose, according to the rites and rituals of Hindu religion. It is further contended that his parents have a preferential right to claim the dead body of his son in comparison to the widow of the deceased.

6. Per contra Shri Brian Da Silva, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate, it has been contended that there is no specific averment in the writ petition that there was forcible conversion of Praveen Kumar Balotiya from Hindu religion to Christianity. Similarly, there is no iota on record to establish that the conversion of Praveen Kumar was made forcibly. Accordingly, it is submitted that the provisions of M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 have no application. Preferential right of parents to claim the dead body in comparison to the right of widow of the deceased is also denied.

7. After considering the rival submissions, this Court takes up first the issue of alleged preferential right of parents over the dead body of their son in comparison to his wife.

8. None of the Senior Advocates could point out a provision for claiming dead body of a family member for funeral purpose on preferential basis. this Court did not find any provision in specific in the codified and/or uncodified law wherein dead body of a deceased member of the family may be claimed in preferential manner. On due consideration, it may be observed that a child take