IN WP (CRL) 854 OF 2023- DEL HC -  UP Court has jurisdiction to summon wife in case under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act even though couple has always resided in Delhi where all other disputes between them are pending: Delhi High Court
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [07-07-2023]

Read More: Lydia Monica John v The Government of NCT of Delhi

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 10, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman who had challenged the summon order passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, in a suit instituted by her husband alleging forceful conversion of himself and their two minor daughters to Christianity, on the ground that the High Court at Delhi lacked jurisdiction. The Court, however, stated that the petitioner was at liberty to raise all the grounds and contentions raised before the Allahabad High Court as the Courts at Uttar Pradesh have necessary jurisdiction to deal with the present case.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that “The contentions raised on behalf of petitioners that the parties were married in Delhi, the children were born in Delhi, the acts of atrocities were committed upon petitioner no. 1 in Delhi, multiple litigations are pending in Delhi between the parties and that the contentions and grounds raised by the respondent no. 6 himself in the guardianship petition do not disclose any such allegations, cannot be gone into by this Court in context of the alleged offence qua which complaint has been filed before the ACJM, Muzaffarnagar. The appropriate forums for the petitioner to raise such arguments will be the concerned Court where the revision petition may lie against the impugned order or the same may be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, as per law. Thus, the Courts at Uttar Pradesh will have necessary jurisdiction to deal with the present case.”

The Court observed that the place of residence of the complainant was Muzaffarnagar, and the complainant had even arrived with his daughters to reside at this place in September, 2022 and during this period also, the petitioners had allegedly pressurized the complainant to convert his religion as well as the religion of his daughters to Christianity.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner 1 and responded 6 solemnized their marriage in Delhi in Catholic ceremony under the Christian Marriage Act, 1872. At  the time of marriage, the petitioner 1 was a Christian and respondent 6 was a Hindu and it was stated that they continued to profess the same faith till date. However, after a few years of marriage, respondent 6 allegedly started to subject petitioner 1 to domestic violence which led to multiple pending legal proceedings in various legal forums.

The respondent 6 vide an application under  Section Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), registered an FIR on the basis of false allegations of conspiracy of religious conversion had been allowed which was covered under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. However, the same had no application in NCT of Delhi where petitioner 1 and respondent 6 had lived for the duration of marriage. It was alleged that the petitioner 1 had forced respondent 6 and his daughters to convert into her religion. The ACJM, UP had passed the impugned order in favour of respondent 6.

This judgment covered the disposal of two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of such proceedings initiated against the petitioners who alleged that the those proceedings were initiated based on false allegations by the husband of petitioner 1.

The Court stated that respondent 6 had misguided the Court at Muzaffarnagar about his place of residence and the birth place of minor daughters. It was further noted that the minors were not even baptised which was mandatory for becoming a Christian.

However, the Court observes that as per the complaint filed by the husband, the cause of action had partly arisen in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh where he resided. Further, the allegations related to commission of offences under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 which was a specific UP legislation. Thus, the Court found that the Court in Muzaffarnagar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Court also noted that an order under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was amenable to revisional jurisdiction and the petitioners had the remedy to file an appropriate petition before the Court concerned in UP.

Hence, the Court found that the present petitions were not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed while giving the petitioners the liberty to raise all grounds before the Courts in UP.