The Delhi High Court has refused to recognise a marriage performed in an Arya Samaj Mandir according to the Hindu Vedic rites and customs between a Muslim man named Akhtar, who falsely represented himself as Shiva, and a Hindu woman.
The incident of impersonation came to light after the woman made a complaint at a police station here in December last year that Akhtar concealed his identity and introduced himself as Shiva before they became intimate and started having a physical relationship.
The woman stated in the FIR that Akhtar took her to the Arya Samaj Mandir and got married there. She also stated that in the marriage certificate he has given his name as Akhtar. The woman complained that soon after their marriage, Akhtar started demanding money and when she visited his parents, she was driven away by them.
In January this year, Akhtar moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR on the ground that the parties have come to a compromise as the woman had pardoned him and they are willing to live as husband and wife.
Forged Aadhaar cards
In response to the plea, Delhi Police in its status report stated that Akhtar hid his identity and was sexually exploiting the woman for five years. Akhtar has even forged Aadhaar cards and have two such cards, one in the name of Akhtar and the second in the name of Shiva.
The report also stated that the marriage certificate of Akhtar and the woman, was verified from the Trust concerned and the same was found to be a fake one.
Taking into consideration the facts of the case, Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected Akhtar’s plea to quash the FIR noting: “This is not a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for the reason that the petitioner [Akhtar] has not married the respondent No.2 [the woman]”.
“The marriage certificate is found to be a fake one and in any event, the petitioner could not have married the respondent No.2/complainant in Arya Samaj Mandir according to the Hindu Vedic rites and customs,” the court noted.
“A reading of the allegations in the FIR and the status report, it is evident that the petitioner has been accused of serious offences like rape and forgery, having a bearing on vital societal interest and these offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but rather will have an effect on the society at large,” it ruled.
“In crimes which seriously endangers the well-being of the society, it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably,” it remarked.