The court ruled that a live-in relationship cannot be protected under law if one party is a minor at its inception and no application for conversion has been filed as mandated by the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.

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 commanding/directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to secure the security of life and property of the petitioners from the respondent No.4.

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

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and are of marriageable age. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is daughter of respondent No.4 and she belong to Muslim community. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 20.01.2006 and the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 13.06.2001, in support thereof the petitioners have brought on record their High School marksheet-cum-Certificates respectively which are annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition respectively. It is submitted that both the petitioners are living in live-in-relationship since about last 5 to 6 months. Both the petitioners intend to marry each other after lawful conversion of their religion, however, presently they are living in live-in- relationship as the right is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that father of petitioner No.1 is an influential person of the locality and he is harassing the petitioners in collusion with local police. It is contended that respondent No.4 in collusion with the police of the police station Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj has picked up petitioner No.2 and illegally put him under their illegal detention for a few hours and left him free after physically and mentally harassing him. The petitioners are now forced to run from one place to another in order to save their life and themselves. Petitioners also made several oral and written complaints before the police officials but till date no action has been taken by them, hence, it is prayed that live-in-relationship be protected till they marry with each other after lawful conversion of their religion.

4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that petitioners have not applied for conversion of their religion under Section 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 so far nor they have moved any application for protection to police. No valid proof of date of birth of petitioner No.1 is filed. Father of petitioner No.1 is not residing in Jhapiya Lalbihara, Bamrauli, Jhapiya, Allahabad and he is posted in air force and is residing in Belia, Post-Kota Mukundpur, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, District-Maharajganj. It is also submitted the missing report is also lodged by respondent No.4 vide G.D. No. 48 on 03.02.2024 at 15:52, therefore, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner that petitioner No.2 was detained in P.S.-Dhoomanganj, Prayagraj. It is further submitted that no application for protection has been moved to any police officer, therefore, no cause of action survives, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to private respondent. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.

6. I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the entire materials brought on record.

7. Perusal of the record reveals that date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 20.01.2006 as per her High School mark-sheet and date of birth of petitioner No.2 as per his High School mark-sheet is 13.06.2001 and both the petitioners are major. It further transpires from paragraph No. 7 of the petition that petitioners are in relationship since about five-six months, hence, at the time of start of their relatio