ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. A rare demand for handing over the dead body of the deceased Praveen Kumar Balotiya has been made by the parents and brothers of the deceased in order to enable them to perform funeral of the deceased according to Hindu religion with an allegation that he was wrongly cremated on account of alleged conversion to Christianity. A direction has also been sought for prosecution of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on the ground that their conduct allowed the last rites of the deceased to be performed by cremation according to another religion. 2. Briefly stated facts are that Praveen Kumar Balotiya, a Hindu by religion was married to Benzaliv (respondent No. 8) on 10-9-2004. On 26-2-2006 Baptism was performed on him and he was converted to Christianity. On 18-4-2008 Praveen Kumar Balotiya died. It is alleged that due to intervention of Police, the dead body of Praveen Kumar Balotiya was allowed to be cremated according to Christian customs. It is alleged that during his lifetime, Praveen Kumar Balotiya as well as his wife were following customs of Hindu religion. Cremation was made according to Christian religion due to the intervention of police who allowed it to be cremated on the ground that the wife of the deceased had the first right over the dead body. It is stated that the factum of alleged conversion of Praveen Kumar Balotiya to Christianity was not intimated to the District Magistrate as required under section 5 of M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968. According to the petitioners it amounted to forcible conversion which is prohibited by virtue of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. 3. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and 9 submitted their separate returns. They contended that Praveen Kumar Balotiya accepted conversion to Christianity voluntarily as per his own will and faith. There was no forcible conversion. Accordingly, his dead body was rightly cremated as per Christian religion and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for parties made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of the record and the law governing the situation. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that Praveen Kumar Balotiya did not repose faith in Christianity. Praveen Kumar Balotiya was Hindu by birth and was follower of Hindu religion. 4. Learned Counsel for parties made their respective submissions which have been considered in the light of the record and the law governing the situation. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that Praveen Kumar Balotiya did not repose faith in Christianity. Praveen Kumar Balotiya was Hindu by birth and was follower of Hindu religion. He did not wish conversion at any point of time and was in fact not converted. Conversion in the absence of any intimation as per section 5 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam, means forcible conversion, therefore, his dead body is liable to be delivered to petitioners for funeral purpose, according to the rites and rituals of Hindu religion. It is further contended that his parents have a preferential right to claim the dead body of his son in comparison to the widow of the deceased. 6. Per contra Shri Brian Da Silva, learned Senior Advocate and Shri Pankaj Dubey, Advocate, it has been contended that there is no specific averment in the writ petition that there was forcible conversion of Praveen Kumar Balotiya from Hindu religion to Christianity. Similarly, there is no iota on record to establish that the conversion of Praveen Kumar was made forcibly. Accordingly, it is submitted that the provisions of M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 have no application. Preferential right of parents to claim the dead body in comparison to the right of widow of the deceased is also denied. 7. After considering the rival submissions, this Court takes up first the issue of alleged preferential right of parents over the dead body of their son in comparison to his wife. 8. None of the Senior Advocates could point out a provision for claiming dead body of a family member for funeral purpose on preferential basis. this Court did not find any provision in specific in the codified and/or uncodified law wherein dead body of a deceased member of the family may be claimed in preferential manner. On due consideration, it may be observed that a child takes birth in a family not as per his choice but in natural course, whereas, marriage takes place as per choice. It may further be seen that the divorce may be obtained for bringing an end to the marital status with the wife whereas the status of the parents cannot be denuded by any manner known to law. It may further be seen that the divorce may be obtained for bringing an end to the marital status with the wife whereas the status of the parents cannot be denuded by any manner known to law. Thus, prima facie it seems that the parents may have upper hand in the matter of claiming dead body of their deceased son. However, this point is being kept open for being decided in an appropriate case because the writ petition is being decided on other points. 9. On perusal, it is found that there is no specific averment in the writ petition that Praveen Kumar Balotiya was forcibly converted from Hindu religion to Christian religion. He had married to respondent No. 8 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act as revealed in the marriage certificate Annexure/R-8-1 dated 10-9-2004. It is nowhere established that the marriage was performed against his wishes. It is also implicit in the certificate that marriage of Praveen Kumar Balotiya was not performed according to Hindu religion. Copy of the affidavit dated 21-9-2005 is on record as Annexure/R-8-2 which clearly goes to show that he was converted to Christianity in a voluntary manner according to his own wishes and that he was not forcibly converted. 10. At this juncture, Shri Dhande, learned Senior Advocate submitted that original of the affidavit was not produced. This objection was absolutely without any force because copy of the affidavit was submitted by respondent No. 8 along with her return, but the petitioners did not choose to insist for production of original affidavit. In the absence of any such objection, this Court is of the considered opinion that the affidavit having been submitted along with return cannot be disbelieved and cognizance to the contents of the affidavit may be given. Similarly it is stated that the deceased was Baptimised after about 11 months on 18-4-2008. During the aforesaid period or even thereafter, Praveen Kumar Balotiya did not raise any objection about his conversion during his life time. Thus, it cannot be said that Praveen Kumar Balotiya was forcibly converted from Hindu religion to Christian religion. There is nothing on record to explain the absence of any objection about conversion on the part of the deceased Praveen Kumar Balotiya during the said period. Thus, it cannot be said that Praveen Kumar Balotiya was forcibly converted from Hindu religion to Christian religion. There is nothing on record to explain the absence of any objection about conversion on the part of the deceased Praveen Kumar Balotiya during the said period. Thus, in the exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction, moreso, in the absence of any specific pleadings about forcible conversion, plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. 11. Scheme of M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 may now be examined. The Act has been enacted for prohibition from conversion from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means thereto. Section 3 prohibits every person to convert or attempt to convert any person by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means. Abetment of conversion is also prohibited under this section. Section 4 provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of section 3 i.e. forcible conversion. Section 5 makes it mandatory for a person to send an intimation to the District Magistrate of the district concerned of conversion. It further provides for punishment in case of failure to send an intimation. Prosecution for offence under the Act requires previous sanction of the District Magistrate or any other authorised authority. Section 8 gives rule making power to the State Government. In exercise of the same, M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Rules, 1969 are made. Rules of 1969 so made, prescribe limitation for intimation and obliges the District Magistrate to maintain a register for conversion. Here I may profitably quote the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of M.P. and others, AIR 1977 SC 908 wherein the following passage of this Court's decision was approved: What is penalised is conversion by force, fraud or by allurement. The other element is that every person has a right to profess his own religion and to act according to it. Any interference with that right of the other person by resorting to conversion by force, fraud or allurement cannot, in our opinion, be said to contravene Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, as the Article guarantees religious freedom subject to public health. Any interference with that right of the other person by resorting to conversion by force, fraud or allurement cannot, in our opinion, be said to contravene Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, as the Article guarantees religious freedom subject to public health. As such, we do not find that the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the M.P. Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 1968 are violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, it guarantees that religious freedom to one and all including those who might be amenable to conversion by force, fraud or allurement. As such, the Act, in our opinion, guarantees equality of religious freedom to all, much less can it be said to encroach upon the religious freedom of any particular individual. 12. A mere look at the provisions of the Act as well as Rules makes it clear that although, it is provided that conversion is to be intimated by the person who converts from one religious faith to another and an intimation is to be mandatorily sent about such conversion within seven days of this ceremony, absence of intimation does not vitiate the conversion. Secondly, it is only a forcible conversion and not merely conversion which is prohibited. In the absence of specific averments about forcible conversion, it cannot be said that Praveen Kumar Balotiya was forcibly converted. Moreover, he married to respondent No. 8 (Christian by religion) under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and not according to Hindu rites and rituals under the Hindu Marriage Act on 10-9-2004. He submitted an affidavit on 21-9-2005 before Lutheran Church, Ranjhi, Jabalpur that he was voluntarily accepting Christianity and undergoing Baptism at his own free will and that he was not forced/threatened or allured. Baptism was performed after about five months as is revealed in Annexure/R-8-3. He died on 18-4-2008. During his entire life time, he did not raise any voice about the alleged forcible conversion. It is only after his death that the parents and brothers (petitioners) came forward in a writ petition to claim the dead body of the deceased Praveen Kumar Balotiya on assumption of his forcible conversion. It is nowhere stated in the writ petition that how did they draw a presumption about forcible conversion and what was the information gathered by them about it. Neither any such information nor its sources are on record. It is nowhere stated in the writ petition that how did they draw a presumption about forcible conversion and what was the information gathered by them about it. Neither any such information nor its sources are on record. Thus, the petition is hopelessly without any foundation and no relief in respect of dead body of the deceased Praveen Kumar Balotiya may be granted on the basis of bald averments contained in the writ petition. 13. As regards direction for prosecution for the offence, the Pastor who Baptimised Shri Praveen Kumar Balotiya is reported to have died. As regards prosecution against other respondents, it may be seen that Praveen Kumar Balotiya is not found to have been forcibly converted, he appeared to be a Christian as per Annexure/R-8-3. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are not found to have committed any offence by allowing cremation according to Christianity. 14. In the result, writ petition being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed