IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a live-in-relationship without obtaining a divorce from the previous spouse constitutes an offence under Muslim Law and IPC, and cannot be protected by mandamus.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per aadhar card the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 03.01.1993 and she is aged about 31 years and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 as per his aadhar card is 07.09.2002 and he is aged about more than 21 years. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 was earlier married with one Shahrukh on 04.03.2014 and since the petitioner No. 1 was not able to conceive, she was thrown out from her matrimonial house. Thereafter, in the year 2022 when the petitioners No.1 was working in NOIDA, she met petitioner No. 2 and since then they are living in relationship. It is further submitted that the parents of petitioner no.1 and her other family members are interfering in their peaceful live-in-relationship. The petitioners apprehend danger to the life and liberty from respondent No.4 and other family members, therefore, petitioner no.1 moved an application, therefore present petition moved by the petitioners for issuance of mandamus.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that petitioner no.1 is already married to one Shahrukh, she has not obtained any decree of divorce, as prescribed under the personal law, from her earlier husband and started living with petitioner no.2 in adultery, therefore, their relationship can not be protected by law. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Kiran Rawat and Another Vs. State of U.P. and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Asha Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and opposed the petition. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that no cause of action arose as no application for protection has been moved to the authorities in the instant matter. Lastly it is submitted that mandamus cannot be issued against private person, hence the prayer made in the writ petition is opposed.

5. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record it transpires that both the petitioners are major and as per aadhar card the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 03.01.1993 and she is aged about 31 years and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 as per his aadhar card is 07.09.2002 and he is aged about more than 21 years. It is also apparent from the record that petitioner no.1 was earlier married to one Shahrukh and leaving her earlier husband without obtaining divorce, as prescribed under law, she started living with petitioner no.2. In the case of Kiran Rawat(Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:-

"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." It is observed that in Muslim Law living-in-relationship is not permitted."

7. In the case of Asha Devi(Supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court formulated two questions as under:-

"(i) Whether the p