"Respondents (couple) have rightly converted as per the Section 3 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. Therefore, after conversion into Christianity the marriage does not fall under the 'sapinda' relationship (which is prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act)," said Justice Suresh Kait while upholding the marriage.
Pulling up the father for filing case against his son, the high court recently said, "This type of thinking is spoiling the broad thinking of new generation and at times it leads to honour-killing.
"If the courts start supporting this type of issues, they would amount to support the 'khap' dictat. The courts are not meant to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party."
The court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on O P Gogne, currently practicing as a lawyer after retiring from Delhi Judicial Services, for filing "frivolous case" against his son who is a sitting magistrate in a city court.
"The petitioner (Gogne) being a retired judicial officer should have been more careful while indulging in such type of frivolous case. Thus, he has unnecessarily wasted the time of the courts," Kait said and asked him to deposit the money with the Advocates Welfare Fund, Bar Council of Delhi.
The court said the magistrate has not committed any offence, being a government servant.
Gogne filed a case challenging the sessions court's April 20 order rejecting his plea against his son alleging that he being a government servant had procured a certificate for marriage by giving false declaration.
The son had converted to Christianity along with his would-be bride and got married at St Thomas Baptist church, Civil Lines, Delhi in November 2009.
The father rushed to a magisterial court, seeking his son's prosecution for marrying his first cousin by misusing the provisions of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
As the magisterial court dismissed his plea, he moved the sessions court which too did the same.
At the sessions court, the father argued that mere conversion to Christianity only days before the marriage did not ensure his son as an Indian Christian under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872.
Rejecting the contention, the court had said that it is not the logical interpretation of the expression 'Indian Christian'.