Hindu-Muslim Couple Used Live-in to Evade Conversion Law: Allahabad HC

The bench comprising Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, while refusing to interfere with the police investigation or grant legitimacy to the relationship, emphasized that live-in arrangements cannot become a legal shortcut to evade the implications of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The petition was filed by a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, who asserted that they were both majors and had voluntarily entered into a live-in relationship. They moved the court seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging police harassment instigated by the woman’s father who disapproved of the interfaith relationship.

The bench observed that although adult individuals have the right to choose their partners, the judiciary cannot be used to rubber-stamp private arrangements lacking legal backing.

"This writ petition appears to be a circuitous way to get the seal and signature of the High Court upon their conduct without any verification of their age and other necessary aspects," the court noted.

Importantly, court took a stern view of the couple's attempt to bypass legal processes governing marriage and conversion. “After the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, the device of living together without marriage has been adopted to escape from the clutches of the law,” the order stated.

While the court acknowledged prior Supreme Court rulings, including Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, that uphold the right of consenting adults to cohabit, it made a critical distinction. These judgments, the bench said, must be read in the context of the specific facts before the apex court and do not amount to a blanket endorsement of live-in relationships, particularly when used to avoid statutory responsibilities.

Court also referred to Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, Dhanu Lal v. Ganesh Ram, and Velusamy v. Patchaiammal, highlighting that long-standing, stable live-in relationships may gain limited legal recognition.

However, court clarified, "The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, however, cannot be considered to promote such relationships. Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. The Supreme Court is simply accepting a social reality and it has no intention to unravel the fabric of Indian family life".

It stressed that "awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that such relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles on issues like division of property, violence and cheating within live-in relationships, rehabilitation in case of desertion by or death of a partner and handling of custody and other issues when it comes to children born from such relationships".

Partners in a live-in relationship do not enjoy an automatic right of inheritance to the property of their partner, the bench highlighted.

Court also discussed the recognition of sex outside marriage under Muslim law. It said, "In Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage. "Zina" which has been defined as any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife includes both extramarital sex and premarital sex and is often translated as fornication in English. Such premarital sex is not permissible in Islam. In fact any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring etc. are "Haram" in Islam before marriage because these are considered parts of "Zina" which may lead to actual "Zina" itself.

The punishment for such offence according to Quran (chapter 24) is hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication together with the punishment prescribed by the "Sunnah" for the married male and female that is stoning to death".

Court pointed out that following the ratio of law cited in the cases of Lata Singh and S. Khushboo by the Supreme Court, it has delivered several judgements stating that No person can be allowed to threaten or commit or instigate acts of violence or harass adult persons who undergo inter-caste or inter religious marriage. However, the bench highlighted that the petitioners in the present case failed to meet even the preliminary thresholds such as duration of cohabitation, shared finances, or societal acknowledgment.

Therefore, it refused to quash the FIR, pointing out that it disclosed a cognizable offence warranting investigation.

"We find no good ground to interfere and grant the prayer as made in the writ petition," the order concluded.

Case Title: xxx and Ors vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others

Order Date: July 29, 2025

Bench: Justices Brij Raj Singh and Sangeeta Chandra