The Madras High Court has held that compelling one’s spouse, or even attempting to “proselytize a spouse to the religion of another” without their consent amounts to violence and mental cruelty..A Bench of Justices N Seshasayee (now retired) and L Victoria Gowri of the Madurai bench also held that in inter-faith marriages, compelling a spouse to convert to another religion to which the other spouse belongs, will amount to the breach of their fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. “A matrimony, which commenced with love and affection when it struggles to proceed with twists and turns by the beloved husband's attitude of compelling the Hindu wife to convert to Islam by renaming her as Salima from Devi and further compelling her to completely abandon her beliefs which she has been following from birth by heart, thereby, putting her on crossroads for the purpose of proselytization, would amount to abject cruelty. Forcible conversion means violence,” the High Court said..The Court made the observations while hearing an appeal filed by a Muslim man challenging a trial court’s order dissolving his marriage with a Hindu woman that had been solemnised under the Special Marriage Act.The wife had initiated the dissolution proceedings before the family court alleging mental and physical abuse, cruelty and desertion. She had also alleged that the husband taunted her over her religion and caste, and forced her to convert to Islam.The High Court held that the trial court had been right in dissolving such marriage as there existed enough proof of violence and the man’s attempts to forcibly convert the woman to Islam..“The conduct inflicted by the appellant on the respondent wife had caused grave mental pain and suffering to the respondent wife compelling her to convert to Islam shattering her belief system and damaging her conscience, which in due course of time had evolved into a challenge to her life and personal liberty to live up to her conscience and belief system. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as well, categorically holding that not only conversion, but also effort to proselytize a spouse to the religion of another without their consent is nothing, but absolute violence,” the High Court said..The Court also laid out the expectations a spouse has in love marriage, stating,"When two hearts fell in love and decide to live in unison by committing them to the relationship of marriage, they expect their mutual space to prevail all through their lives, following their own system of beliefs and their own way of socio-cultural traditions. In a love marriage, a woman marries her beloved only with a fond hope that her space will not be invaded and that her privacy will never be curtailed and her belief system will be appreciated, acknowledged and respected."It further stated that forcibly converting one spouse in an inter-faith marriage to another religion would amount to denial of that spouse's right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution..While noting that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 does not provide conversion to other religion as a ground for marriage, the Court said that the point to be considered was whether compelling a spouse to convert to another religion amounts to cruelty.Given the fact that the man started staying in his sister's house a few years into the marriage, the Court found that he had deserted his wife.The Court found that the appellant's conduct caused grave mental pain and suffering to the wife, as she was made to give up her personal liberty to live up to her conscience and belief system."Hence, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for grant of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as well, categorically holding that not only conversion, but also effort to proselytize a spouse to the religion of another without their consent is nothing, but absolute violence," the Court, upholding the trial court order..Advocate J Anandhavalli appeared for the appellant husband.Advocate KK Senthil appeared for the respondent wife..[Read Order]
