Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ., admitted a petition which was filed to address and examine some issues:
1. Whether a self-styled Trust allegedly registered as Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust can solemnize marriage between a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl?
2. Whether the said Trust has authority in law to issue marriage certificate?
3. Whether the said Trust in its aims and objects can indulge in such activities?
4. Whether the bylaws of the alleged Trust are duly ratified by the Registrar Public Trust or either under any Public Trust Act or other Act as the document doesn’t reflect so?
5. Whether on a mere declaration on affidavit or a notarized affidavit the Trust can convert religion of a Muslim girl as Hindu?
6. Whether the alleged Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust by itself can be held to be an Arya Samaj Mandir which is solely for the purposes of solemnization of marriage having no affiliation or permission by the State/National body of the Arya Samaj Mandir?
Court hereby appointed Shri Faizal Ali Shah, a prominent Advocate of the Court to assist in the context of aforesaid questions with relevant literature and recitals of holy Kuran.
The Court was requested to look into the matter of hundreds of indiscriminate marriage certificates being issued to young boys and girls by such marriage shops on payment of huge amount without verification of their age and identities and no record was being maintained. It was prayed that the Court may also consider appointing a high-level police inquiry into the affairs of the instant Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust.
Case has been listed for further hearing on 28-07-2022.
[Rahul v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 1386, decided on 16-06-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Suresh Agrawal, Advocate, for the petitioner;
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General with Shri Devendra Choubey, Government Advocate, for the State;
Shri Balwant Singh Billowria, counsel with Shri Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocates, for respondent 6.
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Was the girl a minor at the time of marriage? Or was she unaware of the boy’s religion? Or was she forcefully converted ? If not, who the hell is the court to tell if they could marry or not? No third party is necessary for a Gandharv Vivah.