# Mariya Zameel & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1364
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 1067 of 2024
- **Bench:** Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mariya-zameel-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51807
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article 26-The petitioners an interfaith
couple, claimed to have solemnized their
marriage according to Arya Samaj rituals
and alleged interference and threats
from
a
family
member(Respondent
no.4)-The
State
argued
that
their
marriage is not valid under the Hindu
Marriage Act, as the Muslim petitioner
did not convert, violating the Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act,2021-Held,
petitioners
failed
to
follow
the
mandatory provisions of the Act,2021the
court
emphasized
the right to
personal liberty and choice but noted
these rights are subject to statutory
restrictions.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
59. In view of said fact, as there is
no challenge on merit to the findings
recorded by Labour Court for short
payment of wages made to the employees,
the order passed on 10.11.2023 which has
been assailed in Writ Petition No. 292 of
2024 warrants no interference by this
Court.

60. All the writ petitions fail and
are hereby dismissed.

61. However, no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1364
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Writ -C No. 1067 of 2024

Mariya Zameel & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article 26-The petitioners an interfaith
couple, claimed to have solemnized their
marriage according to Arya Samaj rituals
and alleged interference and threats
from
a
family
member(Respondent
no.4)-The
State
argued
that
their
marriage is not valid under the Hindu
Marriage Act, as the Muslim petitioner
did not convert, violating the Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act,2021-Held,
petitioners
failed
to
follow
the
mandatory provisions of the Act,2021the
court
emphasized
the right to
personal liberty and choice but noted
these rights are subject to statutory
restrictions.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

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

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

3. Nandkumar & anr. Vs St. of Ker.(2018) 16
SCC 620

4. Kamini Devi Vs St. of U.P. Writ. C No. 11108
of 2020

5. Razia & anr. Vs St. of U.P. Writ C No. 27338
of 2023

6. Kiran Rawat & anr.. Vs St. of U.P.

7. D.Velusamy Vs D.Patchajammal (2010) 10
SCC 469

8. Indra Sarma Vs V.K.V. Sharma (2013) 15 SCC
755

9. Asha Devi & anr. Vs State of U.P. & ors. Writ
C No. 18743 of 2020

10. A Subhash Babu Vs St. of A.P.

11. Shayara Bano Vs U.O.I.

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

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

14. Kalyan Singh Vs St.of U.P. (1962)AIR SC
1183

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

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Yogesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
for the State.
4 All. Mariya Zameel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1365
2. The present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution has been
preferred by the petitioners with the
following prayers:

" (i) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus commending the
respondents not to harass/torture/illegally
arrest the petitioners or to interfere or
create hindrance in the peaceful living of
the petitioners as living husband and wife
and to protect the life and liberty of the
petitioners.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the
facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award the cost of the writ
petition to the petitioners."

3. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that both the
petitioners have attained the age of
majority. As per high school certificatecum-marks sheet the date of birth of
petitioner No.1-Mariya Zameel Urf Riya is
25.12.1999 and she is aged about more than
24 years and as per pan card the date of
birth of the petitioner No.2-Mihir Pandey is
04.03.2000 and he is aged about more than
23 years. It is submitted that both the
petitioners are major and they developed
love affair and solemnized their marriage
on 01.01.2024, as per Rituals of Arya
Samaj. Copy of marriage certificate issued
by Arya Samaj is annexed as annexure no.5
to the petition. They have applied on-line
for registration of their marriage before the
competent
authority,
which
is
pending.Copy of on-line application for
registration of marriage is annexed as
annexure no.6 to the petition. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has averred in
the writ petition that they are living as wife
and husband and their relationship is not
relished and agreed by private respondent
no.4 and he is interfering in their marital
life. The petitioners apprehend danger to
the life and liberty from respondent No.4,
therefore, the indulgence of this Court is
sought. Petitioner No.1 has also moved an
application
before
the
Senior
Superintendent of Police, Varanasi on
17.01.2024 by registered post, seeking
protection for herself and petitioner No.2
from respondent No.4, but no action has
been taken by police authorities in the
matter.
Copy
of
application
dated
17.01.2024 is annexed as annexure no.1 to
the
supplementary
affidavit
dated
29.01.2024. Therefore, present petition
moved by the petitioners for issuance of
mandamus against respondent no.4.

4. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel submitted that both the
petitioners are different religion and either
of the parties have not applied for
conversion of their religion, as per sections
8 & 9 of Conversion Act. The Muslim
women cannot solemnized her marriage
with Hindu man as per the rituals of Arya
Samaj, in Hindu Marriage Act. Hence
opposed the prayer of petition.

5. I have heard the rival
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record it
transpires that both the petitioners have
attained the age of majority. As per high
school certificate-cum-marks sheet the date
of birth of petitioner No.1-Mariya Zameel
Urf Riya is 25.12.1999 and she is aged
about more than 24 years and as per pan
card the date of birth of the petitioner No.2Mihir Pandey is 04.03.2000 and he is aged
about more than 23 years. Both the
petitioners are major and they developed
1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
love affair and solemnized their marriage
on 01.01.2024, as per Rituals of Arya
Samaj. They have applied on-line for
registration of their marriage before the
competent authority, which is pending.

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-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
4 All. Mariya Zameel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1367
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
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
1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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
4 All. Mariya Zameel & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1369
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 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-inrelationship 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 live-in-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
1370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. No proof of joint account,
financial security, joint property or joint
expenditure is produced before this Court.
Petitioners have not applied for conversion
so far. 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.

21. In view of the discussions as
above, it is not considered desirable that
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) 4 ILRA 1370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -C No. 1782 of 2024

Shahnawaz Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vipul Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Nirankar Singh

The
Uttar
Pradesh
High
Courts
Amalgamation Order, 1948-Clause 14Petitioner has filed as many as four Writ
Petitions at Allahabad- two of which are still
pending- root cause for filing all the writ