# Alfiya Azmil & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1863
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 4717 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alfiya-azmil-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51565
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-the
petitioners
sought
protection against the respondent no.
4(his father) as the petitioners are living
in live-in-relationship for 5 to 6 months-In
the present case, none of the petitioners
has moved application for conversion of
religion in accordance with section 8 and
9-More so, the petitioner no.1 was below
18
years-no
proof
of
joint
account,
financial
security,
joint
property
is
produced before this court-no FIR has
been lodged by the parents of any of the
petitioner-no application is moved to SSP
for protection of their lives or liberty,
therefore no cause of action for petitioner
to seek protection against respondent no.
4-Therefore,
no
challenge
to
the
relationship of petitioners.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Alfiya Azmil & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1863
counsel for the petitioner. The election
which has been notified and the election
process that has been set in motion is for
holding an election in accordance with the
provision of the Co-operative Societies Act.

11. Although, it is not being disputed
that the electoral college consists also of
delegates of Co-operative Societies, who
were inducted into the Federation by an
interim committee of management and that
such delegates would prima-facie not be
eligible to participate in the election, yet,
since the election process has been notified
and the election itself is set to be fixed for
tomorrow and the election results are to be
declared on 28.02.2024, we do not consider
it a fit case for interference.

12. The Court therefore, declines to
interfere at this stage leaving it open for the
petitioner, in case aggrieved, to challenge
the election itself after the election result
has been declared on the ground that the
electoral
college
was
improperly
determined.

13. It is also expected that in case
such an election petition is filed, the same
shall be decided as expeditiously as
possible.

14. The writ petition stands dismissed
at this stage subject to the observations
made herein above.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1863
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 4717 of 2024
Alfiya Azmil & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Deena Nath, Sri Deepak Kumar, Sri Shubham
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-the
petitioners
sought
protection against the respondent no.
4(his father) as the petitioners are living
in live-in-relationship for 5 to 6 months-In
the present case, none of the petitioners
has moved application for conversion of
religion in accordance with section 8 and
9-More so, the petitioner no.1 was below
18
years-no
proof
of
joint
account,
financial
security,
joint
property
is
produced before this court-no FIR has
been lodged by the parents of any of the
petitioner-no application is moved to SSP
for protection of their lives or liberty,
therefore no cause of action for petitioner
to seek protection against respondent no.
4-Therefore,
no
challenge
to
the
relationship of petitioners.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Razia & anr..Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-C No.
27338 of 2023

2. Kiran Rawat & anr..Vs St.of U.P Cr. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023

3. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P.& anr. (2006) 5 SCC
475

4. Shafin Jahan Vs Asokan K.M. & ors. (2018)
16 SCC 368

5. D.Velusamy Vs D. Patchjammal (2010) 10
SCC 469

6. Asha Devi & anr..Vs St. of U.P. & Ors Writ C
No. 18743 of 2020
1864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Shayara Bano Vs U.O.I.

8. Lily Thomas & anr..Vs U.O.I. & ors.

9. Dir of Settlement, A.P. Vs M.R. Apparao

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,
J.)

1. Instant writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution has been filed by
the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus
commanding/directing
the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 to secure the
security of life and property of the
petitioners from the respondent No.4.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
State respondents and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that both the
petitioners
are
major
and
are
of
marriageable age. It is further submitted
that
petitioner
No.1 is
daughter
of
respondent No.4 and she belong to Muslim
community. The date of birth of petitioner
No. 1 is 20.01.2006 and the date of birth of
petitioner no. 2 is 13.06.2001, in support
thereof the petitioners have brought on
record their High School marksheet-cumCertificates respectively which are annexed
as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the affidavit
filed in support of the writ petition
respectively. It is submitted that both the
petitioners are living in live-in-relationship
since about last 5 to 6 months. Both the
petitioners intend to marry each other after
lawful
conversion
of
their
religion,
however, presently they are living in livein-relationship as the right is guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. It is further submitted that father of
petitioner No.1 is an influential person of
the locality and he is harassing the
petitioners in collusion with local police. It
is contended that respondent No.4 in
collusion with the police of the police
station Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj has picked
up petitioner No.2 and illegally put him
under their illegal detention for a few hours
and left him free after physically and
mentally harassing him. The petitioners are
now forced to run from one place to
another in order to save their life and
themselves. Petitioners also made several
oral and written complaints before the
police officials but till date no action has
been taken by them, hence, it is prayed that
live-in-relationship be protected till they
marry with each other after lawful
conversion of their religion.

4. Learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submitted that petitioners have not
applied for conversion of their religion
under Section 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2021 so far nor they have
moved any application for protection to
police. No valid proof of date of birth of
petitioner No.1 is filed. Father of petitioner
No.1 is not residing in Jhapiya Lalbihara,
Bamrauli, Jhapiya, Allahabad and he is
posted in air force and is residing in Belia,
Post-Kota Mukundpur, P.S. Kotwali Sadar,
District-Maharajganj. It is also submitted
the missing report is also lodged by
respondent No.4 vide G.D. No. 48 on
03.02.2024 at 15:52, therefore, there is no
force in the contention of the petitioner that
petitioner No.2 was detained in P.S.-
Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj. It is further
submitted that no application for protection
has been moved to any police officer,
therefore, no cause of action survives,
hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
3 All. Alfiya Azmil & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1865
5. In view of the order proposed to
be passed, there is no need to issue notice
to private respondent. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for the parties,
this writ petition is being disposed of
finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of
the Court.

6. I have heard the rival
submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and perused the entire materials
brought on record.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that
date of birth of petitioner No.1 is
20.01.2006 as per her High School marksheet and date of birth of petitioner No.2 as
per his
High
School
mark-sheet
is
13.06.2001 and both the petitioners are
major. It further transpires from paragraph
No. 7 of the petition that petitioners are in
relationship since about five-six months,
hence, at the time of start of their
relationship, petitioner No.1 was minor. It
is also clear that petitioner No.1 has not
applied for conversion as per the mandate
provided under Section 8 and 9 of the Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. It is also
submitted that petitioner No.2 was illegally
detained in police station, however, no
proof is brought on record that petitioner
No.2 was detained in police station and no
date and time of detention is mentioned in
the application.

8. Reliance has been placed on the
judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in case of Razia and Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. passed in Writ-C No.
27338 of 2023, in which Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court relying upon various
judgment granted protection to the couple
living
in
live-in-relationship.
Learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that in
this case also one of the party is muslim by
faith and in the identical situation, the court
has granted protection. Opposing the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioners, learned Chief Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State
relied upon the case law passed by Division
Bench in case of Kiran Rawat and Anr. Vs.
State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023. From the
perusal of both the cases, it is apparent that
the judgment of Kiran Rawat (supra) is
mentioned by the Single Bench decision of
this Court in case of Razia (supra) but the
ruling is not discussed on merits in that
case nor the ruling is distinguished on facts,
hence, the ruling has no application on the
present case. Reliance has also been placed
by petitioners upon the judgement of the
Apex Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2006)
5 SCC 475, whereby Hon'ble the Apex
Court has held as under:-

"17. The caste system is a curse on
the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the
better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a
time when we have to be united to face the
challenges before the nation unitedly.
Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in
the national interest as they will result in
destroying the caste system. However,
disturbing news are coming from several
parts of the country that young men and
women who undergo inter-caste marriage,
are threatened with violence, or violence is
actually committed on them. In our
opinion, such acts of violence or threats or
harassment are wholly illegal and those
who commit them must be severely
punished. This is a free and democratic
country, and once a person becomes a
major he or she can marry whosoever
he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl
do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-
1866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
religious marriage the maximum they can
do is that they can cut off social relations
with the son or the daughter, but they
cannot give threats or commit or instigate
acts of violence and cannot harass the
person who undergoes such inter-caste or
inter- religious marriage. We, therefore,
direct
that
the
administration/police
authorities throughout the country will see
to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage with a woman or man who is a
major, the couple are not harassed by any
one nor subjected to threats or acts of
violence, and any one who gives such
threats or harasses or commits acts of
violence either himself or at his instigation,
is taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such
persons and further stern action is taken
against such persons as provided by law.
We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of
such persons who undergo inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage of their own free
will. There is nothing honourable in such
killings, and in fact they are nothing but
barbaric and shameful acts of murder
committed
by
brutal,
feudal
minded
persons who deserve harsh punishment.
Only in this way can we stamp out such
acts of barbarism."

9. In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan
K.M. and Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC
368, the Apex Court emphasized due
importance to the right of choice of an
adult person, which the Constitution
accords to an adult person. Hon'ble the
Apex Court held as under :-

"52. It is obligatory to state here
that expression of choice in accord with
law is acceptance of individual identity.
Curtailment of that expression and the
ultimate action emanating therefrom on the
conceptual structuralism of obeisance to
the societal will destroy the individualistic
entity of a person. The social values and
morals have their space but they are not
above
the
constitutionally
guaranteed
freedom. The said freedom is both a
constitutional
and
a
human
right.
Deprivation of that freedom which is
ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is
impermissible. Faith of a person in
intrinsic to his/he meaningful existence. To
have the freedom of faith is essential to
his/her autonomy; and it strengthens the
core norms of the Constitution. Choosing a
faith is the substratum of individuality and
sans it, the right of choice becomes a
shadow. It has to be remembered that the
realisation of a right is more important
than the conferment of the right. Such
actualisation indeed ostracises any kind of
societal notoriety and keeps at bay the
patriarchal supremacy. It is so because the
individualistic faith and expression of
choice
are
fundamental
for
the
fructification of the right. Thus, we would
like to call it indispensable preliminary
condition"

10. Both these cases guarantees the
fundamental right of choice of an adult
person while marrying with inter-faith
persons. The said freedom is both a
constitutional and human right and no-one
is allowed to deprive all such freedom from
any human being.

11. In the case of D.Velusamy Vs.
D. Patchajammal reported in (2010) 10
SCC 469, Hon'ble Apex Court while
considering the definitions given under
Section 2 of the Domestic Violence Act
dealt with the definition of "domestic
relationship", as a relationship in the nature
of marriage. It laid down the following
3 All. Alfiya Azmil & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1867
requisite criteria in the relationship in the
nature of marriage:-

"(a)
The
couple
must
hold
themselves out to society as being akin to
spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to
marry.
(c)
They
must
be
otherwise
qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily
cohabited and held themselves out to the
world as being akin to spouses for a
significant period of time."

12. In the case of Asha Devi and
Another vs. State of U.P. and Others
passed in Writ (C) No.18743 of 2020, the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
formulated two questions as under:-

"(i) Whether the petitioners, who
claim themselves to be living together as
husband and wife; can be granted
protection when the petitioner No.1 is
legally wedded wife of someone else and
has not taken divorce sofar ?
(ii)
Whether
protection
to
petitioners as husband and wife or as livein-relationship can be granted in exercise
of powers conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, when their living
together may constitute offences under
Sections 494/495 I.P.C. ?"

13. In the judgment of Asha Devi
(Supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court has discussed the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "D.
Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal", in
which the Hon'ble Apex court held that:-

"32. In our opinion not all live in
relationships will amount to a relationship
in the nature of marriage to get the benefit
of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the
conditions mentioned by us above must be
satisfied, and this has to be proved by
evidence.
If a man has a `keep' whom he
maintains financially and uses mainly for
sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would
not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the
nature of marriage'."
(Emphasis supplied)

14. In the judgment of Asha Devi
(Supra), the Division Bench of this Court
on the basis of various judgments of High
Court held that following relationship are
not recognized or approved as live-inrelationship:-

"(a) Concubine can not maintain
relationship in the nature of marriage vide
paras 57 & 59 of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. V. K. V.
Sarma.
(b) Polygamy, that is a relationship
or practice of having more than one wife or
husband at the same time, or a relationship
by way of a bigamous marriage that is
marrying someone while already married
to
another
and/or
maintaining
an
adulterous relationship that is having
voluntary sexual intercourse between a
married person who is not one's husband
or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship
in the nature of marriage vide para 58 of
judgment in Indra Sarma's Case (supra) &
A Subhash Babu Vs. state of A.P.4 (paras
17 to 21, 27, 28 & 29). Polygamy is also a
criminal offence under Section 494 & 495
I.P.C., vide Shayara Bano Vs. Union of
India 5 (paras 299.3).
(c) Till a decree of divorce is
passed the marriage subsist. Any other
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage would constitute an offence under
1868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 494 I.P.C. read with Section 17 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
person, inspite of his conversion to some
other religion would be liable to be
prosecuted for the offence of bigamy, vide
Lily Thomas and another Vs. Union of
India and others6 (Para 35). In para 38 of
the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:-
"38. Religion is a matter of faith
stemming from the depth of the heart and
mind. Religion is a belief which binds the
spiritual nature of man to a super-natural
being; it is an object of conscientious
devotion, faith and pietism. Devotion in its
fullest sense is a consecration and denotes
an act of worship. Faith in the strict sense
constitutes firm reliance on the truth of
religious doctrines in every system of
religion. Religion, faith or devotion are not
easily interchangeable. If the person feigns
to have adopted another religion just for
some worldly gain or benefit, it would be
religious bigotry. Looked at from this angle,
a person who mockingly adopts another
religion where plurality of marriage is
permitted so as to renounce the previous
marriage and desert the wife, he cannot be
permitted to take advantage of his
exploitation as religion is not a commodity
to be exploited. The institution of marriage
under every personal law is a sacred
institution. Under Hindu Law, Marriage is
a sacrament. Both have to be preserved."
(Emphasis supplied)
(d) If both the persons are
otherwise not qualified to enter into a legal
marriage including being unmarried, vide
D Velusamy Vs. D Patchaiammal (supra)
(para 31)."

15. In the judgment of Asha Devi
(Supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court has also discussed the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Director of Settlement, A.P. Vs. M.R.
Apparao, in which the Hon'ble Apex court
has considered the High Court's power for
issuance of mandamus and held as under:-

"17.
.................
One
of
the
conditions for exercising power under
Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is
that the Court must come to the conclusion
that the aggrieved person has a legal right,
which entitles him to any of the rights and
that such right has been infringed. In other
words, existence of a legal right of a citizen
and performance of any corresponding
legal duty by the State or any public
authority, could be enforced by issuance of
a writ of mandamus. "Mandamus" means a
command. It differs from the writs of
prohibition or certiorari in its demand for
some activity on the part of the body or
person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus
is a command issued to direct any person,
corporation,
inferior
Courts
or
Government, requiring him or them to do
some particular thing therein specified
which appertains to his or their office and
is in the nature of a public duty. A
mandamus is available against any public
authority including administrative and
local bodies, and it would lie to any person
who is under a duty imposed by statute or
by the common law to do a particular act.
In order to obtain a writ or order in the
nature of mandamus, the applicant has to
satisfy that he has a legal right to the
performance of a legal duty by the party
against whom the mandamus is sought and
such right must be subsisting on the date of
the petition. .................."

16. In the relationship of marriage
or in the nature of live-in-relationship there
must be two consenting adults human
beings. The concept of Gotra, Caste and
Religion is left a way back. No one has
3 All. Alfiya Azmil & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1869
right to interfere in the personal liberty of
two adults, not even the parents to two
adults can interfere in their relationship,
but, the Right to Freedom or Right to
Personal Liberty is not an absolute or
unfettered right, it is qualified by some
restrictions also. The freedom of one
person extincts where the statutory right of
another person starts, hence, the freedom of
one person cannot encroach or overweigh
the legal right of another person. If the
petitioners are already married and had
their spouse alive, he/she cannot be
permitted to enter into live-in-relationship
with third person without seeking divorce
from the earlier spouse. He/she first has to
obtain the decree of divorce from the court
of
competent
jurisdiction
before
solemnizing marriage of entering into livein-relationship out of their legal marriage.

17. It is pertinent to mention here
that The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021
(in brevity ?the Act?) has come into force
on 05.03.2021, thereafter it is made
mandatory for interfaith couples to seek
conversion according to the provisions of
the Act. In the case at hand, admittedly,
none
of
the
petitioners
has
moved
application for conversion of religion in
accordance with Section 8 and 9 of the Act.
Explanation to Section 3(1) of the Act reads
as follows:-

"3(1) No person shall convert or
attempt to convert, either directly or
otherwise, any other person from one
religion to another by use or practice of
misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent
means. No person shall abet, convince or
conspire such conversion.
Explanation:- For the purposes of
this
sub-section
conversion
by
solemnization of marriage or relationship
in the nature of marriage on account of
factors enumerated in this sub-section shall
be deemed included."

18. Explanation goes to show that
conversion is not only required for the
purpose of marriage, but it is also required
in all relationship in the nature of marriage,
therefore, Conversion Act applies to
relationship in the nature of marriage or
live-in-relationship. Petitioners have not yet
applied for conversion as per provisions of
Section 8 and 9 of the Act, hence, the
relationship
of
petitioners cannot
be
protected
in
contraventions
of
the
provisions of law.

19. Certainly, the Courts have
power to interpret the provisions of law if
there is ambiguity in the provisions of law,
but, the above mentioned law is explicit
which mandates that conversion is required
not only in cases of inter-caste marriages
but relationship in the nature of marriage,
hence,
Courts
should
refrain
from
embarking upon the interpretation of law in
any sense when the law is very explicit.

20. While applying the principles
laid down in various pronouncements by
Hon'ble the Apex Court, it gives guidelines
to the fact that couple must be of legal age
to marry and qualified to enter into legal
marriage including being unmarried and
they must be akin to spouse for significant
period of time. In the present case, the age
of petitioner No.1 was below 18 years
when she started living with petitioner
No.2. There is nothing on record primarily
to show that they are living as husband and
wife except their affidavit. No proof of
joint account, financial security, joint
property or joint expenditure is produced
before this Court. Petitioners have not
1870 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applied
for
conversion
so
far,
no
application has been moved to police
authority for protection of their live-inrelationship. No information is given to the
higher authorities or to any Magistrate that
the petitioners are being tortured and
detained by police at the behest of the
mother of petitioner No.1. Till date, no
F.I.R. has been lodged by the parents of any
of the petitioner, therefore, there is no
challenge to the relationship of petitioners.
No application is moved to S.S.P. for
protection of their lives or liberty, therefore,
there is no cause of action for petitioner to
seek protection against respondent No. 4.

21. In view of the discussions as
above, it is not considered desirable that
live-in-relationship of the petitioners be
protected in contravention of the statutory
provisions of law passed by legislature,
hence, petition has no force and is liable to
be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1870
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI,
J.

Writ -C No. 5761 of 2024

Brijmohan Tanwar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kant Tripathi, Sri Praveen Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Sri Ravi
Prakash Pandey
Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-U.P.
Urban
Planning
and
Development
Act,
1973-Unauthorized
construction-Urban
developmentcompliance
with
Sanctioned
PlansPetitioner's grievance is that the private
respondents are building beyond the
sanctioned
map,
causing
damage
to
petitioner's property-The court observed
that
the
private
respondents
had
exceeded the permissible construction
area under the approved plan, and the
development
authority's
decision
to
permit
compounding
undermines
the
purpose of urban planning laws-The court
criticized this practice, emphasizing that
compounding
must
not
facilitate
relaxation
of
building
norms,
as
it
encourages
illegal
constructions
and
disrupts
planned
developmentdevelopment authorities must prevent
construction
beyond
approved
plansAssessment of damages caused to the
petitioner's
property
must
be
undertaken.(Para 1 to 8)

The writ petition is disposed of.(E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J & Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. A grievance is raised in the present
petition
that
constructions
are
being
allowed by the development authority
contrary to the sanction plan on account of
which petitioner's adjoining constructions
are getting damaged. Taking note of such
contention, we passed following orders on
26.2.2024:-

"1. Grievance of the petitioner is
that
private
respondents
are
raising
construction contrary to the sanctioned
map on account of which petitioner's
construction, on the adjoining, is getting
damaged.