Interfaith marriage in auto rickshaw draws ire of Punjab and Haryana High Court; judge enquires if 'conversion racket' at work: Report

An interfaith couple who knocked on the doors of the law to seek protection after they ran away from their homes have instead found themselves in hot soup.

Their predicament began when the Punjab and Haryana High Court bench hearing their plea discovered that they had married in an auto rickshaw and not a mosque, as had been mentioned in their declaration, as per a report by Indian Express.

The HC flagged this issue, expressed "dismay and shock", and asked a senior police officer to enquire if “any racket of religious conversion” was operating under the veil of such marriages.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil took serious exception to the "false declaration" and said, as per the publication “This act not only tantamounts to misleading the court on the part of the petitioners approaching with unclean hands but serious offence of committing perjury with the Court…The whole proceeding seems to be vitiated with the ulterior motives and befooling the court under the garb of having solemnized marriage and facing threats from private respondents”.

The counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Harjinder Singh, had earlier submitted to the court that the marriage was solemnized at a mosque following Muslim rituals in Punjab's Nayagaon. He had also submitted photograhs and a marriage certificate to the court.

Deputy Advocate General Rajiv Verma, who appeared for the state, told the court that police officials are trying to get in touch with the petitioners and get details of the kind of threat they are allegedly facing from the girl's family.

“To utter dismay and shock, perusal of the photographs make it crystal clear that the marriage was not being solemnized at any Maszid,” the judge observed during the hearing as per IE, and further added, “none of the witnesses as stated in the certificate, that is presence of any Vakil (advocate) or witness or Ahle Jama, is absolutely missing”.

The bench noted that pictures make it clear that the marriage ceremonies were carried out in an auto rickshaw. The petitioners' advocate also “candidly admitted during proceedings that ceremonies were conducted in an auto-rickshaw”.

The bench also noted that this act by the husband in question amounts to "criminal contempt of the court".