The Allahabad High Court held that a Hindu-Muslim couple misused their live-in relationship to evade the Uttar Pradesh conversion law, denying them protection in this interfaith relationship case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court on July 29, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection from arrest and quashing of an FIR. The decision intricately dealt with the interplay of personal liberty, interfaith relationships, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The case has raised essential questions about the limits of judicial protection, the legality of live-in relationships in the context of statutory frameworks, and religious perspectives on cohabitation.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142: “9 Years, 3 States, 1 Resolution”
A Hindu woman and a Muslim man, both claiming to be adults, approached the court seeking protection from alleged police harassment. They were living together voluntarily and had an FIR lodged against them, reportedly influenced by the woman’s father, under:
- Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
- The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021
Court’s Observations
The bench comprising Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh rejected the plea, emphasizing that live-in arrangements cannot be used as a legal bypass to avoid statutory scrutiny, especially when conversion laws and personal laws are involved.
“The device of living together without marriage has been adopted to escape from the clutches of the law.”
While the right of consenting adults to choose their partners is upheld by several Supreme Court precedents, the bench clarified that those rulings do not offer blanket protection, especially when the relationship lacks legal verification of age, shared financial or domestic responsibilities, societal recognition, or durational stability.
The court referred to key Supreme Court cases,
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma
- Velusamy v. Patchaiammal
These cases underscore the limited legal recognition of long-standing live-in relationships but do not endorse them as substitutes for marriage.
The court addressed the religious dimension, especially in the context of Muslim personal law, stating,
“In Muslim law, no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage… Such acts are ‘Haram’ and considered part of ‘Zina’.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: “Lawyers Not Above Law, Phone Calls Can Be Evidence in Criminal Cases”
This served as an important religious-contextual basis for the court’s reasoning, indicating how personal laws intersect with broader constitutional and statutory frameworks.
The bench cautioned against using the judiciary as a tool for private validation,
“This writ petition appears to be a circuitous way to get the seal and signature of the High Court upon their conduct.”
The court, refused to quash the FIR, noting that there was a prima facie disclosure of cognizable offences warranting investigation. It further denied protection to the couple, stating that their relationship failed to meet the basic legal criteria necessary for judicial intervention.
Emphasizing the binding nature of statutory obligations, the bench held that the couple must face investigation under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as engaged by the facts of the case.
Appearance:
Petitioner:- Paritosh Shukla, Sukh Deo Singh
Respondent:- G.A.
Case Title:
Aleem Ahmad (In Fir Aleem) and Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 6842 of 2025
READ ORDER HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Allahabad High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
