Interfaith marriage in auto-rickshaw: HC asks if conversion racket at work

Taking serious note of the “false declaration”, the bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, “This act not only tantamounts to misleading the court on the part of the petitioners approaching with unclean hands but serious offence of committing perjury with the Court…The whole proceeding seems to be vitiated with the ulterior motives and befooling the court under the garb of having solemnized marriage and facing threats from private respondents”.

Justice Moudgil made the observations while hearing the plea of the couple, who had sought protection from the family members of the woman.

Advocate Harjinder Singh, the counsel for the petitioners earlier submitted that the marriage was solemnized in July in Punjab’s Nayagaon as per Muslim rituals against the wishes of the woman’s and were now facing threat to their lives from the latter. The couple, through its counsel, submitted a marriage certificate, and photographs before the court.

For Punjab, Deputy Advocate General Rajiv Verma submitted that efforts were already made by the officials of the police station concerned to contact the petitioners and to enquire about the threat that they were facing. However, the couple could not be found at the address given in the memo of parties.

Meanwhile, during the course of hearing, the court perused the marriage certificate issued by the Qazi and the accompanying photographs.
“To utter dismay and shock, perusal of the photographs make it crystal clear that the marriage was not being solemnized at any Maszid,” Justice Moudgil observed, adding, “none of the witnesses as stated in the certificate, that is presence of any Vakil (advocate) or witness or Ahle Jama, is absolutely missing”.

More so, it was evident that ceremonies were conducted in an auto-rickshaw, the bench noted.

When the same was put to the counsel for the petitioners, it was “candidly admitted during proceedings that ceremonies were conducted in an auto-rickshaw”.

Holding the :whole proceeding to be vitiated with ulterior motives”, the bench said the Court would proceed for an offence of perjury.

“Such an act on the part of the petitioner No.2 (man) tantamount to criminal contempt of the court whereby false declaration have been made in the pleadings of the petition,” the bench held.

The bench directed the SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib to, “enquire into the matter in the light of aforesaid observations and to conduct in letter and spirit enquiry in detail including if any racket operating under religious conversion under the garb of such fake marriage.”

Listing the matter for July 23, the bench directed the SSP to also ensure that the petitioners and the respondents are produced in court on the next date of hearing.