In a pivotal judgment, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Jasmeet Singh, held that marrying a person of another faith does not result in an automatic conversion to their religion. The court clarified that conversion is a conscious, voluntary act, and assumptions of religious conversion based solely on interfaith marriage are unfounded. This ruling was delivered on January 23, 2025, in the case of CS(OS) 2382/2007, which revolved around the inheritance rights of a woman who married a Muslim man.
Case Background
The case arose from a family dispute over the division of ancestral properties belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The plaintiff, a Hindu woman, claimed her share in the HUF properties under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which grants daughters equal rights in ancestral properties. The defendants opposed the claim, arguing that her marriage to a Muslim man severed her rights in the HUF as she no longer qualified as a Hindu under the law.
The properties in dispute included a three-storied house in Friends Colony East, New Delhi, and other movable and immovable assets claimed to be part of the HUF. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their share, partition of the properties, and an injunction restraining the defendants from selling or alienating the assets.
Important Legal Issues
1. Does marrying a person of another religion result in an automatic conversion of the spouse’s religion?
– The defendants contended that the plaintiff ceased to be a Hindu upon marrying a Muslim man, thereby losing her rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
2. Are daughters, irrespective of their marital or religious status, entitled to equal rights in HUF properties under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005?
– The plaintiff argued that the 2005 amendment to the Act ensures equality and supersedes all personal circumstances, including interfaith marriages.
3. What constitutes a valid conversion of religion under Indian law?
– The court examined whether conversion requires a deliberate act or if it can be inferred from circumstances such as marriage.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Jasmeet Singh made significant remarks on the interplay of religious freedom, interfaith marriage, and inheritance rights:
– On Conversion and Marriage:
“Marrying a Muslim man, by itself, does not lead to an automatic conversion to Islam. Conversion requires a deliberate act of renunciation of one’s faith and acceptance of another. It cannot be inferred or assumed.”
– On Freedom of Religion:
The court observed that religious identity is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 25 of the Constitution, which cannot be altered without voluntary intent and action. “The law protects the autonomy of individuals in matters of religion and marriage, ensuring that personal choices do not strip individuals of their fundamental rights.”
– On Property Rights:
Emphasizing the egalitarian intent of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, the court stated, “The 2005 amendment ensures that daughters have equal coparcenary rights. Interfaith marriage does not dilute these rights.”
Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming her entitlement to an equal share in the HUF properties. It held that the plaintiff’s interfaith marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, did not sever her rights as a coparcener. The court dismissed the defendants’ arguments and emphasized the constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom. It ordered the partition of the properties in favor of the plaintiff as per her rightful share.
