On February 23, 2024, the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling concerning the legality of a Muslim woman’s live-in relationship with a Hindu man. The court presided over by Justice Renu Agarwal, determined that such an arrangement cannot be protected under the law, citing violations of Sharia principles.
The verdict stemmed from a plea filed by a married Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner, who sought legal protection due to threats from the woman’s family, including her father. The court firmly stated that it could not endorse what it deemed a “criminal act” committed by the woman.
The court said, “She is living with petitioner number 2 in contravention of the provisions of Muslim Law (Shariat), wherein legally wedded wife can not go outside marriage and this act of Muslim women is defined as Zina and Haram. If we go to the criminality of the act of petitioner number 1, she may be prosecuted for the offence under sections 494 and 495 IPC, as such relationship is not covered within the phrase of live-in relationship or relationship in the nature of marriage.”
In its observation, the High Court highlighted that the petitioner, a Muslim woman, was already married and had not obtained a divorce decree from her husband before entering into the live-in relationship. According to Sharia law, this action is considered a violation, termed as Zina and Haram, and may lead to prosecution under sections 494 and 495 IPC.
Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had not applied for religious conversion, maintaining her Muslim faith despite her relationship with a Hindu partner.
The petitioner, identified as Saleha, had been married to Mohsin, who subsequently married another woman and ceased living with Saleha. Citing domestic abuse, Saleha moved out and entered into a live-in relationship with her Hindu partner, prompting threats from her family.
The court said, “She is Muslim by religion and she has not moved any application to the authority concerned for conversion of her religion under sections 8 and 9 of the Conversion Act.”
The plea, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought protection for the relationship, but the court ruled against it, citing Sharia law. Furthermore, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000 on the petitioners and directed them to deposit the amount at the court’s mediation centre within 15 days.
This ruling underscores the complexities surrounding relationships under Sharia law, where a Muslim woman’s options are constrained compared to those of a Muslim man, who can legally enter into multiple marriages simultaneously.
Comments