Writ C. Nos. 57068, 58129, 58910, 60499 and 62587 of 2014. Case: Noor Jahan Begum and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)

Case NumberWrit C. Nos. 57068, 58129, 58910, 60499 and 62587 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: M.S. Ansari, Advocate.and For Respondents: C.S.C.
JudgesSurya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
IssueConstitution Of India - Articles 226, 25, 25(1), 26, 44
Citation2015 (1) ADJ 755, 2015 (3) ALJ 322, 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 314
Judgement DateDecember 16, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Allahabad (India)

Judgment:

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri M.S. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners in WRIT - C No. - 57068 of 2014, Sri R.P. Srivastava in WRIT-C No. 58129 of 2014, Sri Abhijit Mishra in WRIT-C No. -58910 of 2014, Sri Bed Kant Mishra in WRIT-C No. 60499 of 2014 and Sri R.K. Shukla in WRIT-C No. 62587 of 2014 and Sri Siddharth Singh Shreenet, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent. All these writ petitions have been filed praying for protection as married couple on the allegation that petition No. 2 in each of the writ petitions performed Nikah with the petitioner No. 1 girl after getting her religion converted from 'Hindu' to 'Islam'. In all these writ petitions the petitioner girl has voluntarily offered for recording their statement before this Court and, as such statements on oath of both the petitioners in each of the above noted writ petitions were recorded in open court and in presence of learned counsel for the parties. Since similar controversy is involved in these writ petitions and similar submissions have been made by learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel and as such I proceed to decide these writ petitions together, with due discussions of facts of each writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES.

2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners of each writ petitions are major and their marriage is evidenced by Nikahnama and as such they are entitled for the relief as prayed in the writ petitions.

3. The basic submission of learned counsel for the state-respondents is that since conversion and Nikah both are doubtful and in any circumstances religion of petitioner girls has been converted under the dictate of petitioner No. 2 boys only for the purposes of alleged Nikah and, as such, there was neither any valid religion conversion nor valid Nikah. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to protection as married couple. He submits that religion conversion from Hindu to Islam merely for marriage and that too at the instance of Petitioner No. 2 boy in each of the writ petitions, is not permissible even as per Muslim Law. He further submits that writ petitions are based on suppression of facts and misleading averments and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners do not dispute the facts that the petitioner No. 2 boy has got converted the religion of petitioner No. 1 girl of each of the writ petitions to marry with her. They also do not dispute the contents of the statements made by each of the petitioners before this Court but they submit that since Nikahnama has been filed with the writ petition, therefore, they are entitled for protection as married couple.

DISCUSSIONS & FINDINGS.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.

6. Before I proceed to discuss the legal position, it would be appropriate to discuss briefly the facts of each cases and the statements made by the petitioners.

7. Facts of Writ C No. -58129 of 2014 are as follows:

"(i) This writ petition has been filed accompanied by affidavit of petitioner No. 2 in which he has stated by personal knowledge that both the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage on 20. 10.2014 at Allahabad. It has not been stated that the petitioner No. 2 girl has renounced her Hindu religion and embraced Islam and also married with the petitioner No. 2 by her own freewill. In their voluntary statement on oath before this Court, the petitioners have stated as under:

Statement of Petitioner No. 1 (girl).

(ii) In her voluntary statement on oath the petitioner No. 1 girl has stated that the petitioner No. 2 got converted her religion which he did to marry with her. Petitioner No. 1 also stated that her religion was converted by one Sri Abdul Rahim on the instructions of petitioner No. 2 and he gave her conversion certificate of acceptance of Islam at Akbarpur. Allahabad which has been filed as Annexure No. 3 and about which she does not know anything. She stated that she knows nothing about Islam. She also stated that in the Nikahnama filed as Annexure No. 4 the place of Nikah is mentioned as near High Court where nikah did not take place. During her statement she named her as "Kiran" and also put her signature as "Kiran". She has not used even the alleged Muslim name allegedly given to her. She also stated that she was brought to Allahabad on 20th October, 2014 at 5 p.m. while alleged conversion and Nikah took place at 9 A.M. Which is not possible.

(iii) In his voluntary statement on oath on 3rd November, 2014 the petitioner No. 2 accepted that he brought Kiran (petitioner No. 1) on 20th October, 2014 at about 7 A.m. and with the help of one Sri Abdul Raheem he got her religion converted for the purposes of Nikah. He stated that Abdul Raheem is a maulvi in a mosque situated at Akbarpur, Allahabad. He further stated that Nikah and conversion took place at about 9 A.M. On 20th October, 2014. He expressed his total unawareness about the name of Qazi written in the alleged nikahanama."

8. From the aforenoted facts and statements on oath voluntary given by the petitioners, it is clear that the story of religion conversion of petitioner No. 1 is wholly unreliable inasmuch as according to petitioner No. 1 she alone came to Allahabad at about 5 P.M. on 20th October, 2014 whereas according to petitioner No. 2 he brought her at Allahabad on 20th October, 2014 at about 7 A.M. and got her religion converted and also performed Nikah with her at about 9 A.M. on the same day. Besides this the conversion also appears to be manipulated which fact is evident from bare reading of the statements of the petitioners.

9. In any circumstances the religion of the petitioner No. 1 was converted under the dictates of petitioner No. 2 and merely for the purposes of Nikah and without any knowledge of Islam or her faith in Islam.

10. A person cannot be said to have accepted Islam unless he knows the basics of Islam. There are serious contradictions between the pleadings made in the writ petition, the alleged papers filed along with the writ petition and the statements on oath of the petitioners recorded on 3rd November, 2014.

11. Under the circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioners inasmuch as the writ petition itself has been filed suppressing the material facts with regard to the alleged conversion and Nikah.

12. It is settled law that a person who invokes jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind and clean heart. Petitioners have not done so. The writ petition is based on false averments, suppression of facts and misrepresentation, and therefore it deserves to be dismissed.

13. In the case of Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v. Girdhari Lal Yadav, 2004 (6) SCC 325, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the applicability of principles of natural justice in cases involving fraud and held in paragraph 12 and 13 as under:

"12. Furthermore, the respondent herein has been found guilty of an act of fraud. In opinion, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to be afforded to him. It is not necessary to dwell into the matter any further as recently in the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri devi this Court has noticed:

"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.

It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.

18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad."

19. In Derry v. Peek, (1889)14 AC 337 it was held: "In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false.

A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person make it liable to an action of deceit."

14. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others, 2003(8) SCC 319, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 37 as under:

15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is wellknown vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.

16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.

17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.

18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT