Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Over Forced Religious Conversion
The Madras High Court ruled that forcing a spouse to convert to another religion amounts to cruelty. The Court upheld a Family Court’s decision to dissolve an inter-faith marriage, citing mental and emotional abuse.
Forcing Religious Conversion Violates Fundamental Rights
A division bench of Justice N Seshasayee and Justice Victoria Gowri held that compelling a spouse to convert violates Article 21 of the Constitution. It deprives the victim of life and personal liberty. The Court also ruled that such actions violate Article 25, which guarantees the right to freely profess and practice one’s religion.
Religious Pressure Affects Quality of Life
The Court emphasized that denying a person the right to practice their religion leads to a life without dignity. Articles 21, 39(e), 39(f), 41, and 42 ensure a dignified life. Forcing conversion destroys personal freedom and religious beliefs, affecting overall well-being.
Marriage Cannot Be Based on Forced Conversion
The Court observed that marriage is a sacred institution under all personal laws. Forcing a spouse to convert for the sake of maintaining a marriage undermines its foundation. The Court ruled that such pressure destroys the trust and commitment essential in a matrimonial relationship.
Court Rejects Husband’s Appeal
The case involved a Muslim husband challenging the Family Court’s decision to dissolve his marriage with his Hindu wife. The wife sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, stating that her husband repeatedly pressured her to convert and even insulted her caste.
The husband denied the allegations and argued there was no evidence of physical abuse or forced conversion. However, the Court found that he had emotionally and mentally harassed his wife. He had even changed her name to a Muslim name and left the matrimonial home for over two years.
Court Recognizes Mental Pain and Suffering
The Court noted that the husband’s actions inflicted grave mental suffering on his wife. She remained a Hindu throughout the marriage, but he persistently pressured her to convert. His actions shattered her belief system and harmed her personal liberty.
The Court ruled that forcing or attempting to convert a spouse without consent is a form of violence. It upheld the divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Court dismissed the husband’s appeal and affirmed that religious freedom must be respected in marriage.
