JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit sworn by the petitioner no. 1 filed today is taken on record.

2. Sri Deepak Dubey submits that he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant in the office on 10.7.2023.

3. Heard Sri Mohd. Monis, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

4. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 30.4.2023, registered as Case Crime no. 131 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Pipari, District Kaushambi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

5. Admitted case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are live in relationship. The date of birth of the victim is 1.1.2004 and thus, she is major and aged about 19 years, whereas the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is 15.3.2006 and therefore, he is minor and is aged about 17 years.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is major and has left her house voluntarily, therefore, no offence under Section 363 IPC is made out, however, admittedly the boy is minor.

7. During course of arguments it transpired that the connected Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 525 of 2023 (Ali Abbas and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) has been filed in respect of petitioner no. 2-Ali Abbas, who is stated to be in the custody of the brother and other relatives of the victim-Saloni Yadav. It is submitted that both the petitioners were taken away by the family members of Saloni Yadav, however, the petitioner no. 1-Saloni Yadav, somehow ran away from the spot but the petitioner no. 2-Ali Abbas is still in their custody, therefore, habeas corpus petition was filed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submits that the offence under Section 366 IPC is made out. Whether it is a case of abduction, is yet to be investigated and therefore, merely because the girl is major and is in live in relationship with a boy, who is admittedly a minor i.e. below 18 years, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out. He further submits that the habeas corpus petition has been filed on false grounds.

9. Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the petition.

10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.

11. Present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are in live-in relationship. The boy-petitioner no. 2 is muslim. Live in relationship i.e. "Zina" as per Muslim Law has been considered by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023 (Kiran Rawat and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) vide order dated 28.4.2023 and it has been noticed that in Muslim Law live in relationship is not permitted. Relevant paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:-

"21. However, 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."

(emphasis supplied)

12. That apart in the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal 2010 (10) SCC 469 the Hon'ble Apex Court rejected the claim of the respondent for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as wife after holding that she had not married the appellant, there