Heard Sri Amar Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioners assert that they have both attained the age of majority. They claim to have got married of their free will and with mutual consent. The marriage of both the petitioners is their first.
The petitioners prior to their marriage belonged to different religions.At the time of her marriage the petitioner no. 1 converted to the religious faith of petitioner no. 2.
It was contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the conversion is in the teeth of Sections 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. In the absence of proper conversion the marriage cannot be said to be lawful. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of (Smt. Asma and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others) in Writ C No. 11800 of 2021. This Court in Smt. Asma and another (supra) held as under:
"They have applied for online registration of their marriage but in view of the Section 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020 (Uttar Pradesh Vidhi Viruddh Dharm Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhyadesh 2020), the conversion of the petitioner no.2 is not to be in accordance with law, therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioners. There is no compliance of the aforesaid Sections and the conversion of the petitioner no. 2 from Islamic religion to Hindu religion is in contravention to the aforesaid ordinance which has now been made a Bill."
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners face threats to their lives.
In the instant case the Court is not determining the lawfulness of the conversion, the legality of the marriage or the sanctity of their relations. The only point for consideration is the contention that the petitioners face an imminent threat to their lives and risk deprivation of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That being the case the police authorities are directed to assess the threat to the lives of the petitioners and take appropriate measures as per law.
In Smt. Raj Kumari & another Vs State of U.P. and others registered as Writ-C No.7305 of 2013, this Court accorded highest sanctity to the fundamental right to life and liberty assured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The facts of Smt. Raj Kumari (supra) and this case may not be entirely analogous, but some observations made therein have almost universal applicability. The following holding that the prayer for protection of life made by two consenting adults who are living together is unexceptional and the duty to protect is unconditional shall govern this case:
"Disposal of writ petition in such cases may not be construed as grant of certificate by this Court that the alleged marriage is valid and in accordance with law, but nonetheless where girl and boy are adults and they are living together of their own freewill, the Police must give due protection after making enquiry in respect of claim of their age. Once the girl and boy are found to be adults, it is the duty of the Police as well as the Civil Society to ensure that they are not put to fear of their lives or liberty."
The preceding narrative distinguishes this case from the issues decided in Smt. Asma (supra). For these reasons the judgment in Smt. Asma (supra) rendered by this Court is not a binding precedent for this case.
In the wake of the preceding discussion, it is open to the petitioners to make an application to the Superintendent of Police, District- Kaushambi regarding the threats to their lives. The Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi is directed to consider the same and also take necessary action in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
It is clarified that this order does not legitimate the marriage of the petitioner nor is it a judicial pronouncement on the sanctity of the relationship.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Pravin