JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Mr. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Vishnu Srivastava, who has filed Vakalatnama today for the respondent. We have also perused the record of Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014 filed by Kasifa Farog alias Sonal Jain. This is an appeal under 43 Rule 1 CPC against the interim injunction dated 12.11.2014, passed by the Family Court, Bahraich in regular suit No. 2527 of 2014. 2. The respondent Khan Farogh Azam filed a regular suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent has claimed following reliefs : nQk 18 & ;g fd oknh fuEufyf[kr nknjlh ikus dk eq'rgd gS] iznku dh tkos %& v& ;g fd fMdzh :[klrh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknuh la01 bl vk'k; dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos vkSj izfroknuh la01 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd og oknh ds lkFk oknh ds edku lkfdu eksgYyk lykjxat ijxuk o rglhy o 'kgj cgjkbp esa jgdj oknh ds lkFk fonk gksdj gd tkSft;r vnk djs A c & fMdzh gqdqe bfErukbZ nokeh cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknh la02 bl vk'k; dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd izfroknh la02] izfroknuh la01 dh fonkbZ gejkg oknh esa o oknh ds edku ij izfroknuh la01 ds jgus esa rFkk izfroknuh la01 }kjk oknh dks gd tkSft;r dh vnk;xh esa fdlh izdkj ls fo?u o ck/kk o O;o/kku u Mkys vkSj u gh izfroknh la02] izfroknuh la01 dh ‘kknh fdlh vU; O;fDr ls djs vkSj oknh dk rykd izfroknuh la01 ls u djk;s A l& [kpkZ eqdnek oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkos A n & nhxj nknjlh tks djhu bUlkQ vnky; gks cgd oknh f[kykQ izfroknhx.k lkfnj QjekbZ tkos 3. It appears that at the presentation stage, the Family Court, Bahraich has passed the impugned order dated 12.11.2014 granting injunction whereby the appellant No. 2 has been restrained from solemnising marriage of appellant No. 1 from any person whosoever and also not create any hindrance. 4. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the appellants’ counsel that on the one hand, the respondent has filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014, on the other hand also filed Regular Suit No. 2527 of 2014 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Bahraich. 4. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by the appellants’ counsel that on the one hand, the respondent has filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014, on the other hand also filed Regular Suit No. 2527 of 2014 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Bahraich. It has been submitted that no marriage was solemnised between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent and whatever has been done, it is the outcome of fraud committed by the respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent runs an institution of computer education where the appellant No. 1 used to visit and undergo computer training. It is also submitted that the appellant has been defrauded and no religious conversion took place as alleged by the respondent while preferring the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014. Supplementing his argument, the appellants’ counsel submits that the appellants are Jain by religion and there is no documentary evidence to show that the appellant No. 1 was converted to Islam. Further submission of the appellants’ counsel is that merely on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint and without inviting any objections from the appellants as well as without ensuring their presence, the injunction amounting to final relief has been granted which should not have been done by the Family Court, Bahraich. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that conversion from Janism to Muslim took place on 22.1.2014 whereas Nikah took place on 24.1.2014. A perusal of Nikahnama filed alongwith the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014 shows that the name of the appellant No. 1 has been shown as Kasifa Farog as well as Sonal Jain (in bracket). On a query being made by this Court as to how and in what manner, conversion from Jainism to Muslim took place, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this was done orally and there is no other documentary evidence which may indicate conversion from Jainism to Muslim. 6. However, the fact remains that in the Nikahnama, the original name of Sonal Jain has also been indicated. 6. However, the fact remains that in the Nikahnama, the original name of Sonal Jain has also been indicated. It is trite law that for the grant of injunction, it shall be obligatory on the part of the trial Court to observe three conditions, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury. 7. In the present case, prima facie, it appears that there is no material on record nor in the pleading of the suit and also in the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 261 of 2014 as to how and in what manner the conversion from one religion to other religion took place and why in the Nikahnama, original name Sonal Jain has also been indicated. In such situation, it was not proper on the part of the trial Court to pass an order which amounts to final relief, that too without inviting any objection and ensuring presence of the appellants in the pending suit. The trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to file objections and only thereafter, appropriate order should have been passed, that too where personal life of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondent is at stake. 8. In such situation, we admit the appeal, stay further operation of the impugned order dated 12.11.2014, passed by the Family Court, Bahraich. However, we direct the trial Court to proceed with the pending suit expeditiously on merit. 9. At this stage, Mr. Vishnu Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal itself may be finally disposed of directing the trial Court to decide the pending suit or pass a fresh appropriate order after inviting objections from the appellants. In view of the consensus between the parties’ counsel, we proceed to decide the appeal itself finally at admission stage. 10. Subject to the factual narration made hereinabove, we expect that the Courts while dealing with such matter where controversy relates to conversion of a person from one religion to other must be cautious to the prevailing situation and should not pass any order mechanically that too without granting time to the defendant to file objections. 11. Conversion from one religion to other is a tricky issue. While considering such disputes, Courts should ensure that conversion from one religion to other religion has not been done forcibly or fraudulently or with some alurement. 11. Conversion from one religion to other is a tricky issue. While considering such disputes, Courts should ensure that conversion from one religion to other religion has not been done forcibly or fraudulently or with some alurement. In case there is little doubt with regard to mode and manner of conversion from one religion to other, ordinarily injunction may be refused. Heavy burden lies on the person who alleges that conversion took place to prove it with cogent trustworthy evidence. It shall further be necessary to establish that conversion is voluntary without any coercion or misunderstanding. 12. It is the right of the citizens to live according to their own ideology and religious belief. According to Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, religious rights are subject to morality, law and order vide Vasudeo Gupta v. State of U.P and others, 2011(5) ADJ 674 . However, Lord Krishna in Geeta says, to quote : ^^35 Js;kULo/keksZ foxq.k% ijèkekZRLouqf”Brkr~A Lo/keZ fu/kua Ks;% ij/keksZ Hk;kog% AA 35AA^^ It means better is one’s own law though imperfectly carried out than the law of another carried out perfectly. Better is death in (the fulfilment of) one’s own law for to follow another’s law is perilous. Dr. S. Radhakrishnan while interpreting the aforesaid verse of Gita says, to quote: “There is more happiness in doing one’s own work even without excellence than in doing another’s duty well. Each one must try to understand his psychophysical make-up and function in accordance with it. It may not be given to all of us to lay the foundations of systems of metaphysics or clothe lofty thoughts in enduring words. We have not all the same gifts, but what is vital is not whether we are endowed with five talents or only one but how faithfully we have employed the trust committed to us. We must play our part, manfully, be it great or small. Goodness denotes perfection of quality. However, distasteful one’s duty may be, one must be faithful to it even unto death.”(page 147 from The Bhagavadgita by S. Radhakrishnan) 13. Geeta cautious each and everyone while shifting the side. We must play our part, manfully, be it great or small. Goodness denotes perfection of quality. However, distasteful one’s duty may be, one must be faithful to it even unto death.”(page 147 from The Bhagavadgita by S. Radhakrishnan) 13. Geeta cautious each and everyone while shifting the side. Of course, the discretion to citizens is unfettered but while dealing with such cases, the Courts must try to understand and record a finding whether decision taken by the person concerned is consciously understanding the pros and cons of the conversion from one religion to other and the happiness and benefit available thereon. The decision taken because of certain alurement or involuntarily at spurt of moment without thinking the consequences ordinarily may not create a ground to grant injunction. 14. It may not be out of place to mention here that in case any injunction is granted ex parte, that too without inviting objections from the defendant of the suit, it may result with adverse consequence and may affect the life of two persons. Ordinarily, injunction should have been granted by the trial Court only after recording satisfaction on the basis of the pleading on record, that too after inviting objections as well as the keeping in mind the three conditions enumerated above for grant of injunction are fulfilled and finding is recorded accordingly. Of course, the Courts should not delay the matter and injunction should be granted in the light of catena of judgments of Supreme Court and this Court expeditiously, say within a period of three months. 15. Subject to above, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 12.11.2014, passed by the Family Court, Bahraich in Regular Suit No. 2527 of 2014. Trial Court is directed to permit the appellants to file objections and thereafter pass appropriate order. It shall also proceed with the suit expeditiously. The trial Court shall proceed on merit without prejudice to the factual observations, made in the present judgment. The appeal is allowed accordingly. ——————