Person converting for interfaith marriage must declare she knows implications under new religion on divorce, succession: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Friday held that a person converting his/ her religion for the purpose of entering into marriage with a person from a different faith must declare on affidavit that he/ she is aware of the consequences and implications of the new religion with respect to divorce, custody, succession and religious rights [Maksood Ahmad v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr]..The Court, therefore, issued detailed guidelines to be followed by authorities for interfaith marriages after conversion and for recording of the statement of sexual assault victims under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)In its judgement, the Court said that a certificate must be appended to the conversion certificate stating that the convert has been explained the tenets, rituals, and expectations inherent in religious conversion as well as implications and consequences related to marital divorce, succession, custody and religious rights.The Court ordered that the certificate of conversion and marriage should also be in additional vernacular language understood by the prospective convert to prove the fact that he or she has understood the same.“The same be in Hindi also where the language spoken and understood by the prospective convert is Hindi, in addition to any other language preferred to be used by such authority. Where the language spoken and understood by the prospective convert is other than Hindi, the said language can be used,” the Court said.If further said that an affidavit regarding age, marital history and marital status and evidence of the same shall also be furnished and the affidavit shall also say that the conversion is being undergone “voluntarily after understanding the implications and consequences related to marital divorce, succession, custody and religious rights, etc”..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that these directions will not apply to a person converting back to his/her original religion since the convert is already well-versed with his/her original religion.The Court further said that these guidelines will not apply to marriages performed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.“These guidelines are for ensuring well-informed decision on the part of the naive, uneducated, susceptible, adolescent couples who may enter into such unions after conversions, without fully comprehending the profound implications of such a conversion, impact of which extends far beyond the immediate union, encompassing a myriad of consequences on their personal laws and various facets of life,” the Court said..Guidelines on recording of Section 164 CrPC statements are recorded here in brief: .Statement should not be recorded mechanically or in a typed performa. It must be recorded in the language understood by the victim;Victim must be produced before the magistrate at the earliest. Before recording the statement, the Investigating Officer (IC) will identify the victim. The magistrate must record that the IO left the chamber/room after identification;Magistrate must interact with victim to make preliminary inquiries by putting age appropriate and educational background appropriate questions to adjudge the competence of the victim to depose and give rational answers;Questions must reflect the state of mind of the victim by inquiries as to whether he/she is aware about his/her surroundings, the purpose of making the statement and before whom and why he/she is making the statement;Questions must also reflect that the statement is being made voluntarily without any threat, pressure, fear, influence, coercion or tutoring;In case of child victims, the Magistrate must satisfy that he or she understands the sanctity of oath, and in case of tender age, may dispense with administering oath;Preliminary inquiries as well as the statements must be in vernacular and should not typed stereotyped performa;Words and language used by the victim must be written in the statement verbatim. The act of sexual assault explained and described by the victim must be written as it is, instead of writing ‘wrong act‘ which becomes a bone of contention at the time of trial;Magistrate must append a certificate at the end of the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC regarding the statement being made voluntarily and the same being the true and exact statement made by the victim and that nothing has been added or subtracted;The certificate at the end of the statement must also mention that the statement was read over and explained to the victim and the victim has put his/her signatures in token of its correctness. The signatures or thumb impression, must be taken inside the chamber/room and in presence of the Magistrate;If the statement has been typed by a stenographer or an interpreter, which should not be the norm but an exception for reasons to be mentioned in the statement, it will be added that the statement was typed at the dictation of the Magistrate and is the true content of the statement made by the victim..The Court passed these directions while refusing to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against a man under Section 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) even after the complainant and the accused got married.In her complaint, the woman had alleged that she was raped by one Maksood Ahmad on September 24, 2022. The FIR was registered on October 18, 2022. On October 18, the woman converted to Islam and married Ahmad. However, the accused was arrested on November 18, 2022.While the woman claimed that she was divorced from her first husband at the time of her marriage to Ahmad, the Court found no document to substantiate the statement. Ahmad was already married at the time..As the case for quashing of the FIR came before the High Court, it was stated that the accused and the complainant are not legally married and that they now want quashing of the FIR since the couple is together as husband and wife along with the woman’s two children from her first husband.The woman said that she has no objection to the quashing of the FIR..After considering the facts of the case, Justice Sharma noted that when the accused and the complainant got married, the complainant was not divorced from her first husband and this rendered her ineligible for remarriage.The Court observed that there should not be an expectation that as a matter of right, subsequent marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused is sufficient ground for quashing the FIR of every case registered under Section 376 of IPC.“This Court also looks such marriage with suspicion, and the bona fides of accused are also unclear, since the marriage in this case was immediately solemnized i.e. within a period of ten days of registration of FIR, after getting the religion of prosecutrix converted to Islam, and it cannot be ascertained at this stage as to whether the religious conversion in this case was with a bona fide intent to only marry the prosecutrix or to clandestinely project to the prosecutrix that now she was married to the accused and that both of them could now approach the Courts for seeking bail and for quashing of the FIR.”.Justice Sharma ultimately concluded that quashing of the proceedings will be equivalent to permitting abuse of process of law by both the parties.“Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case to quash the FIR,” the Court held..Advocate Shyam Kumar appeared for the petitioner Maksood Ahmad.State was represented by Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Sanjeev Bhandari as well as advocates Kunal Mittal, Arjit Sharma and Rishika. .[Read Judgment]