Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direct the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 and Senior Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar to ensure safety and security to the life, liberty and freedom of petitioners directly or indirectly from impending danger in the hand of respondent as living in live-in relationship.

(b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

(c) Issue award cost of the petition to be paid to the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have attained the age of majority and are living together as husband and wife in a long term relationship since 2020 happily. Their relationship is in the nature of live-in relationship. They are inter religious couple as petitioner no. 1 belongs to Muslim religious community, whereas petitioner no. 2 is Hindu. Date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 20.4.1997 in his high-school certificate and date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 5.5.2002 in her PAN Card, however, her date of birth is mentioned as 13.9.2002 in her class 8th mark-sheet issued from Basic Shiksha Parishad, Kushinagar. Her date of birth is also mentioned as 5.5.2002 in her Adhar Card, copies thereof are annexed at annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, thus both of them have attained the age of consent and marriage, however, they have not solemnized their marriage in any manner whatsoever. Respondent no. 3 is father and respondent no. 4 is brother of petitioner no. 1, who are interfering in peaceful live-in relationship of petitioners, however, family members of petitioner no. 2 has no objection in the relationship. Petitioner no. 1 is doing private job. Petitioners have constitutional right to choice of their partner and to live with any one as they are consenting adults. Respondent no. 3 and 4 have no right to interfere in their peaceful relationship. Petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from respondent no. 4. Hon’ble Apex court in number of judgments have recognized the right to choice and right to seek protection for live-in relationship up to consenting adults. Petitioner no. 1 also moved an application before S.P. Kushinagar on 15.302023 wherein she has sought protection from him against her family members as they are antagonistic towards the relationship of petitioners.

4. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents informed that as per instructions received from C.O., District Kushinagar, no F.I.R. has been lodged in relation to matter covered under present revision and on enquiry this fact emerged that petitioners are living in live-in relationship for last 18 months. He has telephonically conversed with the family members of petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 and they have shown their consent for marriage. Both are major and intend to marry with other, however, he further submitted that although the petitioners have not married till date yet, there is every possibility that they will not tie nuptial knot in near future and being inter-religious couple, their marriage will come within legislative Prohibition contained in U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and without compliance of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, the future conversion of either of petitioners to other religion will not be in accordance with law without compliance of Section 8 and 9 of the Act. Section 8(1) provides that one who desires to convert his/her religion, shall give a declaration in the form prescribed as Scheduled (1) at least 60 days in advance, to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate specially authorized by the District Magistrate that he wishes to convert his/her religion on his/her own and with his/her free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement.

5. Sub-section (3) provides that District Magistrate on receiving information under Sub-section (1) and (2) shall get an enquiry conducted through police with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of the proposed religious conversion. Sub-section (4) provides that contravention of Sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (2) shall have the effect of running the proposed conversion illegal and void. This Act came into force on 5.5.2021. Section 3(1) provides that until the person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or any fraudulent means, no person shall abate, convince or conspire such conversion. Explanation to Section 3(1) reads as under:-

“For the purpose of this Section, conversion by solemnization of marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage on account of factors enumerated in this sub-section shall be deemed included.”

6. Section 5(1) provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 3, shall without prejudice to any civil liability be punished for imprisonment of a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable which shall not be less than Rs. 50,000/-.

7. Learned Additional C.S.C. also placed reliance on a recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023 (Kiran Rawat and another v. State of U.P. and Ors.), wherein this Court has refused to provide protection to another religious couple who were living in live-in relationship. Paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment reads as thus:-

“6. ………...In para 21 of the judgment the Division Bench of this Court observed that the 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. The Division Bench concluded that the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise disputed questions of fact under writ jurisdiction as it would be a wrong assumption of such extraordinary jurisdiction, writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that protection is liable to be granted to petitioners in spite of the fact that they are inter-religious couple as they have not solemnized their marriage as yet and have not converted to either religion, therefore, their case does not come within prohibition of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court in Lata Singh V. State of U.P. another, 2006 AIR (SC) 2522. In that case, petitioner is a major girl, who left her house on her own will and got married to respondent in temple and child was born out of the wedlock. Petitioner entered into inter-caste marriage to one Brahma Nand Gupta at Arya Samaj, Delhi. Petitioner’s brother lodged a missing report wherein police submitted final report mentioning that no offence has been committed by any of the accused. Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraph no. 17 of the judgment as follows:-

“17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.”

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 Lawsuit (Alld) 3014, wherein this Court placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Singh (Supra). This Court observed that principles of law that could be deduced from the above decisions is that if petitioners are major, they have right to choice of a person with whom they want to live. The Courts are not concerned whether their marriage is solemnized or not, as held by the Supreme Court in Gian Devi that if a girl has attained the age of majority, no one including her parents have right to object against her preference. If a Police Officer harasses young couple who are major and living together voluntarily the said police officer will be at risk of disobeying the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2011 6 SCC 396 [LQ/SC/2011/688] in which a direction was issued to circulate the copy of the judgment to Registrar General/Registrars of all the High Courts with further direction to circulate the same to all the Judges of the Courts including Session Judges/Additional Session Judges and also to the Chief Secretaries, Home Secretaries, D.G.P. of all the States for compliance.

11. In S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and another, (2010) 5 SCC 600, [LQ/SC/2010/462] Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph no. 21 as under:-

"21. While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting, with the exception of `adultery' as defined under Section 497 IPC. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision given by this Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522 [LQ/SC/2006/574] , wherein it was observed that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with the obvious exception of `adultery'), even though it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or "live with anyone she likes". In that case, the petitioner was a woman who had married a man belonging to another caste and had begun cohabitation with him. The petitioner's brother had filed a criminal complaint accusing her husband of offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC, thereby leading to the commencement of trial proceedings. This Court had entertained a writ petition and granted relief by quashing the criminal trial. Furthermore, the Court had noted that `no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the Court'."

12. In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M., 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 319, (Hadiya Case), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that validity of marriage between two inter religious couple shall not form a subject-matter of investigation by N.I.A. and laid down the conditions for a valid Muslim marriage. Paragraph nos. 76 and 77 of the judgment read as thus:-

“76. The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. The law may regulate (subject to constitutional compliance) the conditions of a valid marriage, as it may regulate the situations in which a marital tie can be ended or annulled. These remedies are available to parties to a marriage for it is they who decide best on whether they should accept each other into a marital tie or continue in that relationship. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.”

77. In Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India37, this Court in a decision of nine judges held that the ability to make decisions on matters close to one’s life is an inviolable aspect of the human personality:

“The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life… The intersection between one’s mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination… The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual.”

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners also laid emphasis on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Rawat’s case (supra) wherein prayer for issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus for protection of a live-in interfaith couple was denied is not in consonance with the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Singh’s case (supra). In that case, a question of inter-caste marriage was involved but Hon’ble Apex Court observed in that case that if any boy or girl who is major and undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is major, Administrative as well as Police Authority are directed to see that the couple are not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence. However, in Kiran Rawat’s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court in order dated 28.4.2023 discussed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (supra), S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (supra) and some other cases like Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, [LQ/SC/2013/1310] Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 492 and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 [LQ/SC/2010/1137] and observed in paragraph no. 18 as under:-

“18. The Observations of the 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. 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. In Vidhyadhar Versus Sukhrana Bai 2008 (2) SCC 238, [LQ/SC/2008/129] the Supreme Court created some hope for persons living together as husband and wife by providing that those who have been living in a relationship for a reasonably long period of time can receive property in inheritance from her livein partner. In this case property of a Hindu male upon his death intestate was given to a woman with whom he enjoyed a live in relationship, even though he had a wedded wife alive.”

14. While dismissing the writ petition wherein petitioners, interfaith livein couple, has sought protection under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court observed in paragraph no. 24 as below:-

“24. Writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such type of dispute between two private parties. We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt. If there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an F.I.R under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C, with the Police, move an application under section 156 (3) before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly, in case the parents or relatives, find that illegally their son or daughter has eloped for the purpose of marriage, although he or she is underage or not inclined or the respondents are behaving violently, they are equally at liberty to take steps in a similar manner. But, when neither of the actions are taken against each other, and only a fictitious application with certain allegations, particularly by such persons as the petitioners herein enjoying a live-in relationship, is moved under Writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it 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 required to be done by the appropriate authority.”

15. As division Bench of this Court on similar facts denied relief sought in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners, an interfaith couple, and in said Division Bench judgment the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Lata Singh’s case (supra) and S. Khushboo’s case (supra) cited as above, have been discussed thoroughly, judicial discipline does not permit this Court to have a different view in similar case as taken by said Division Bench in Kiran Rawat’s case (supra).

16. On facts of this case it also appears that there is no imminent threat to the petitioners from the parents of petitioner no. 1, as Circle Officer concerned has reported that he has telephonically conversed with the family members of petitioner no. 1 and they have shown their consent for marriage of petitioners, although they are not married as yet.

17. On the basis of foregoing discussions, writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

18. In case petitioners approach the appropriate court of law/Police Authority concerned raising their grievances, the same may be considered in accordance with law.