{"id":126883,"date":"2020-11-28T11:20:04","date_gmt":"2020-11-28T05:50:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=126883"},"modified":"2020-11-28T13:00:53","modified_gmt":"2020-11-28T07:30:53","slug":"love-jihad-allahabad-high-court-pocso-act-hindu-woman-muslim-man","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/cover-story-articles\/il-feature-news\/love-jihad-allahabad-high-court-pocso-act-hindu-woman-muslim-man\/","title":{"rendered":"Love jihad talk: Allahabad HC says state can’t prevent consenting adults from marrying each other"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In a far-reaching judgment, the Allahabad High Court has said that cases of religious conversion are irrelevant if both parties are adults and in a consenting relationship. This cannot be infringed upon by the State.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n By Shivam Sharma<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court<\/a> has reiterated that a person\u2019s right to live with the person of their choice, irrespective of religion, is intrinsic to their right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A bench comprising of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal made the above observations while hearing a petition related to the marriage of a Hindu woman and a Muslim man. An FIR was lodged by the woman\u2019s father alleging offences under Sections 363, 366, 352 and 506 of the IPC (kidnapping, abduction for forcing a woman to marry, etc.) and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court asserted that the matter of religious conversion was irrelevant if both the parties were adults and in a consenting relationship. The right of two adults to stay together cannot be encroached upon by the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It also advocated against State interference in a relationship between two adults, noting: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Salamat and Priyanka Kharwar married against the will of her family on August 19, 2019, under Muslim customs. Kharwar became Alia after marriage. Her father filed an FIR and alleged that his daughter was seduced and taken away. After the FIR, the POCSO Act was invoked against the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, after the hearing, the Court gave permission to Kharwar to live with her husband and said the POCSO Act did not apply in this case. It also quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioners. Opposing the petition, it was said on behalf of the state government that conversion for marriage only is prohibited and such a marriage is not recognised in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said that it did not see them from the perspective of Hindus or Muslims. Two adults had been living together for the last one year of their own free will and choice and interfering in personal relationships was a serious encroachment on the right to privacy of the person, which he is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Allahabad High Court<\/a> had earlier in Priyanshi @ Km Shamren and others vs State of UP and Another dismissed a writ petition filed by a married couple seeking a stay on their families interfering in their marriage. The Court observed that the Muslim born woman had converted to Hinduism in June and married as per its rituals in July. This clearly revealed that conversion had taken place only for the purpose of marriage. Ruling that conversion just for the purpose of marriage was unacceptable, the Court said it would not interfere in the matter under Article 226, and dismissed the plea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n