HC dismisses protection plea of married woman, live-in partner

PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court recently denied protection to a Muslim married woman who was in a live-in relationship with her Hindu friend, observing that a legally wedded Muslim woman cannot go outside marriage and her relationship with another man would amount to ‘zina’ (fornication) and ‘haram’ (act forbidden by Allah) as per Sharia law.
The 26-year-old woman and her 25-year-old partner moved court with a protection plea on the ground that they are adults and living together on their own. Rejecting the plea, a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal observed that the “criminal act” of the woman “cannot be supported and protected” by the court and and imposed a cost of ₹2,000 on the live-in couple.
Observing that the petitioner woman had not acquired any divorce decree from the appropriate authority and was in a live-in relationship, the court said, “The first petitioner is living with the second petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Muslim law (Shariat), wherein a legally wedded wife cannot 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 the first petitioner, she may be prosecuted for the offence under IPC sections 494 (marrying again during life-time of husband or wife) and 495 (same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted), as such, the relationship is not covered within the phrase of live-in relationship or relationship in the nature of marriage,” it said.
The court was dealing with a protection plea filed by the Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner, seeking protection against the acts of the parents of the woman and her other family members. In the petition, it was claimed that they were interfering in their peaceful live-in relationship.
The petitioner was married to one Mohsin, who remarried two years ago and was now cohabiting with his second wife. Following this, the woman moved to her matrimonial home, but due to his alleged abuse, she opted to reside with a Hindu man in a live-in relationship.
During the hearing, the state counsel opposed her plea by submitting that since she had not obtained any decree of divorce from her husband and started living with the second petitioner, therefore, their relationship could not be protected by law.
The court, in its judgment on February 23, observed that since the Muslim woman (petitioner) had not moved any application to the authority concerned for conversion of her religion under sections 8 and 9 of the Conversion Act, and also the fact that she had not obtained divorce from her husband, she was not entitled to any protection.