Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri M.S. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners in WRIT-C No. 57068 of 2014, Sri R.P. Srivastava in WRIT-C No. 58129 of 2014, Sri Abhijit Mishra in WRIT-C No. 58910 of 2014, Sri Bed Kant Mishra in WRIT-C No. 60499 of 2014 and Sri R.K. Shukla in WRIT-C No. 62587 of 2014 and Sri Siddharth Singh Shreenet, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent.

2. All these writ petitions have been filed praying for protection as married couple on the allegation that petition No. 2 in each of the writ petitions performed Nikah with the petitioner No. 1 girl after getting her religion converted from ‘Hindu’ to ‘Islam’. In all these writ petitions the petitioner girl has voluntarily offered for recording their statement before this Court and, as such statements on oath of both the petitioners in each of the above noted writ petitions were recorded in open Court and in presence of learned counsel for the parties. Since similar controversy is involved in these writ petitions and similar submissions have been made by learned counsels for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel and as such I proceed to decide these writ petitions together, with due discussions of facts of each writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners of each writ petitions are major and their marriage is evidenced by Nikahnama and as such they are entitled for the relief as prayed in the writ petitions.

4. The basic submission of learned counsel for the state-respondents is that since conversion and Nikah both are doubtful and in any circumstances religion of petitioner girls has been converted under the dictate of petitioner No. 2 boys only for the purposes of alleged Nikah and, as such, there was neither any valid religion conversion nor valid Nikah. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to protection as married couple. He submits that religion conversion from Hindu to Islam merely for marriage and that too at the instance of Petitioner No. 2 boy in each of the writ petitions, is not permissible even as per Muslim Law. He further submits that writ petitions are based on suppression of facts and misleading averments and, therefore, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone.

5. Learned counsels for the petitioners do not dispute the facts that the petitioner No. 2 boy has got converted the religion of petitioner No. 1 girl of each of the writ petitions to marry with her. They also do not dispute the contents of the statements made by each of the petitioners before this Court but they submit that since Nikahnama has been filed with the writ petition, therefore, they are entitled for protection as married couple.

DISCUSSIONS & FINDINGS

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.

7. Before I proceed to discuss the legal position, it would be appropriate to discuss briefly the facts of each cases and the statements made by the petitioners.

8. Facts of Writ C No. 58129 of 2014 are as follows:

(i) This writ petition has been filed accompanied by affidavit of petitioner No. 2 in which he has stated by personal knowledge that both the petitioners are major and have solemnized their marriage on 20.10.2014 at Allahabad. It has not been stated that the petitioner No. 2 girl has renounced her Hindu religion and embraced Islam and also married with the petitioner No. 2 by her own freewill. In their voluntary statement on oath before this Court, the petitioners have stated as under:

Statement of Petitioner No. 1 (girl)

^^l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd esjk uke fdju iq=h t;a=h izlkn fuoklh taxyhiqj Fkkuk Hkkokuhxat ftyk fl)kFkZuxjA

;kph la0 1 us le{k U;k;ky; l'kiFk c;ku fd;k fd vkt fnukWd 3&11&14 dks fuEufyf[kr c;ku ns jgh gwWA

esjs firk th dk uke t;a=h izlkn gS eSa taxyhiqj ftyk fl)kFkZuxj dh jgus okyh gwWA eSa b.Vj ehfM,V rd i<+h gwWA eSa bykgkckn fnukWd 20 vDVwcj lu~ 2014 dks 5 cts lk;adky vkbZ FkhA eSa bykgkck