'Quran Punishes Premarital Sex by Lashes or Death': Allahabad HC Denies Relief to Hindu-Muslim Live-In Couple
In a strongly worded order, the Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant protection from arrest to a Hindu-Muslim couple in a live-in relationship, observing that such arrangements cannot be used as a shield to evade laws governing religious conversion or morality under personal law.
Dismissing a petition filed by a Hindu woman and a Muslim man who claimed to be in a consensual relationship, the court said that live-in relationships, though not illegal, cannot be legitimised when used to circumvent the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The couple had approached the court seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST Act, alleging harassment by the woman’s father.
To deal with the issue at hand, the bench of Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh referred to Muslim law and Quranic punishments for premarital sexual relations.
Citing the Islamic concept of Zina, the court stated that sex outside marriage, whether premarital or extramarital, is haram (forbidden) in Islam and carries strict punishments.
“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,” the bench noted. It added that even acts like kissing or staring are prohibited under Islamic law before marriage.
The bench further criticised the increasing trend of interfaith couples using live-in relationships as a facade. It stated that after the enactment of the anti-conversion law, such arrangements were often designed to sidestep the legal obligations surrounding religious conversion and marriage.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings that have previously protected consenting adult couples, including Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, the court said those decisions must be seen in their factual context and cannot be interpreted as blanket approval of all live-in partnerships.
It also underlined the absence of any markers of a genuine live-in relationship in the current case, such as long-term cohabitation, shared resources, or societal recognition of the couple as partners.
“Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage,” the court noted, observing that many rights, including those concerning inheritance and maintenance, are not available to live-in partners. It warned that young people must be made aware of the emotional, legal, and practical challenges that arise from such arrangements, especially when they fall apart.
Despite prior rulings barring harassment of adult interfaith couples, the high court found that the present petition lacked sufficient legal foundation. The FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, the court said, and merited investigation rather than judicial intervention.
“We find no good ground to interfere,” the bench concluded, dismissing the plea.
Case Title: xxx and Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others
Order Date: July 29, 2025
Bench: Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh