Hindu woman harassed by husband and in-laws for following Hindu religious customs, forced to refrain from performing prayers
Naini Tal, Uttarakhand, India 
29 October, 2025
Case Summary
A Hindu woman was obstructed and restricted from practising her faith by her husband and in-laws in Uttarakhand, leading her to file for divorce. The woman, a devout Hindu from Nainital, stated that her husband and his family are followers of the self-proclaimed saint Rampal and reject Hindu gods, rituals, and customs. According to her complaint, she was repeatedly pressured to refrain from performing Hindu prayers or following her traditional practices. She told the court that her in-laws removed the small temple she maintained at home, took her idols of Hindu deities, wrapped them in cloth, and placed them outside the house. The woman described this act as deeply humiliating and distressing, as it directly violated her right to worship. She said that Hinduism was not just her religion but her entire way of life, and being forced to give it up had caused her immense emotional pain. The tension extended to their child as well. When the woman wished to perform the Hindu naming ceremony for her son, her husband refused, saying that his spiritual guru, Rampal, did not believe in such rituals. The woman said this refusal further strained their relationship and confirmed that her husband’s family sought to suppress her Hindu faith. Initially, she approached the Nainital Family Court seeking a divorce on the grounds of religious incompatibility and harassment. The family court dismissed her plea, after which she filed an appeal in the Uttarakhand High Court. A division bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Alok Mahara heard the case. While the High Court did not grant a divorce, it directed both parties to undergo counselling to explore reconciliation or reach a peaceful resolution. The judges emphasised that the welfare of their seven-year-old son should remain a priority as the couple attempts to resolve the conflict.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category in this case is: Attack on Hindu religious representations. The subcategory under this is: Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations, is driven by animosity towards the faith itself which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. Another subcategory under this is: Defiling religious customs. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. There are several such customs and traditions that are followed by various Hindus and Hindu sects. Defiling of these traditions and customs is a breach of an individual or group’s religious practices. Such practices can range from dietary restrictions like not eating non-vegetarian food for a certain period of the year, not eating non-vegetarian food at all, not eating beef since the cow is considered holy in Hinduism, the sanctity of religious customs followed in the house (like many ISCKON devotees), etc. Any malicious action leading to the breach of such traditions or defilement of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the religion itself but also from disregard for the faith of the devotees who follow the customs/traditions and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific sect of Hindus, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. The other category selected here is- Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is- Attack on Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other category in this case is: Predatory proselytisation. The subcategory under this is: Harassment, threats, coercion for conversion. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, including threats and coercion. Harassment and threats, in this case, find their root on discriminatory grounds which has the effect of nullifying a person’s rights or infringing upon his freedom to exercise his right specifically owing to the victim’s religious identity. Verbal and physical threats and psychological or physical harassment are often used against Hindu victims because they choose to practice their professed religion. Religious harassment also includes forced and involuntary conversions by harassment, threats or coercion. Coercion includes intimidatory tactics like force-feeding a Hindu victim beef to convert to another religion, forceful circumcision etc. In several cases documented, non-Hindu perpetrators or those who harbour specific animosity towards Hinduism, harass victims simply based on their religious identity. Such cases often also include harassment to ensure the Hindu victim abandons his/her professed religion and adopts the religion of the perpetrator. Such cases where Hindu victims are harassed to convert to the perpetrator’s religion are rooted in animosity towards the victim’s religious identity and are therefore documented as religiously motivated hate crimes. This case has been included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because it represents a clear instance of religious harassment and targeted suppression of a Hindu woman’s right to practise her faith within her marital home. The woman was not merely discouraged from performing her rituals; she was systematically prevented from expressing her religious identity by her husband and in-laws. Their repeated interference in her personal worship, removal of her household temple, and physical displacement of her deities constituted acts of humiliation and spiritual violation. The incident is emblematic of a growing pattern where Hindu individuals, particularly women, are coerced into abandoning their religious beliefs under the influence of non-traditional or anti-Hindu sectarian ideologies. The core of the abuse in this case lies in the deliberate obstruction of her religious freedom, an essential right protected under law but often undermined within domestic settings. The woman’s in-laws, followers of a sect that rejects mainstream Hindu practices, weaponised their belief system to isolate and psychologically pressure her. By dismantling her temple, removing her idols, and barring her from performing prayers, they inflicted emotional trauma rooted in religious animosity. Such conduct not only suppresses individual autonomy but also aims to erase Hindu cultural expressions from private and familial spaces. This hostility extended to the woman’s parental role and her desire to raise her son according to Hindu tradition. When her husband refused to permit a simple naming ceremony, citing his guru’s disapproval, it was not an act of passive difference but a direct attempt to override her right to transmit her faith to her child. This form of coercion exemplifies how religious dominance and intolerance manifest within domestic relationships, targeting Hindu women’s beliefs, isolating them within their marital homes, and denying them the right to practise, preserve, and pass on their faith. The desecration of the idols and removal of the home temple further elevate this case beyond a private dispute. In Hindu tradition, household shrines are sacred spaces of worship that symbolise the presence of divinity within the home. Their destruction or removal by individuals harbouring contempt for Hindu rituals represents a profound act of religious desecration. It mirrors the same intention found in larger public acts of vandalism against temples, an intent to dishonour the symbols that hold spiritual meaning for Hindus. Additionally, the repeated interference with her customs and rituals amounts to the defilement of Hindu traditions. The Hindu way of life is expressed through countless daily practices, from offering prayers to maintaining household sanctity, and obstructing these customs constitutes a violation of religious freedom. The woman’s experience reveals the deeper bias of her husband’s family: their disdain for Hindu deities and refusal to permit even minimal observances in their home exposes an ideological hostility toward Hinduism itself. This case is, therefore, categorised as a hate crime against Hindus because it involves the deliberate suppression of Hindu worship, desecration of Hindu religious icons, and coercive pressure to abandon Hindu customs. It reflects a targeted pattern of discrimination motivated by religious animosity rather than simple domestic discord. By seeking judicial relief, the victim not only challenged personal oppression but also exposed a broader form of religious intolerance that seeks to delegitimise Hindu belief within intimate, everyday spaces. Disclaimer: It is important to clarify that none of the media sources covering this case have specified the exact date on which the ordeal of the victim started. Therefore, for documentation purposes, we have recorded the date based on when the incident was reported in the media.
Victim Details
Total Victim
1
Deceased
0
Gender
- Male 0
- Female 1
- Third Gender 0
- Unknown 0
Caste
- SC/ST 0
- OBC 0
- General 0
- Unknown 1
Age Group
- Minor 0
- Adult 1
- Senior Citizen 0
- Unknown 0
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
