Court No. - 78

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31846 of 2022

Petitioner :- Safia Khanam @ Sapna And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Shukla

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

On the last occasion, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

passed following order:

"A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner no. 1 has converted her religion and got

married with her own sweet will with the petitioner no. 2 and solemnized marriage at

Arya Samaj Mandir, Damodarpuram, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly according to Hindu

Rituals. The petitioners in support of age proof have filed documents showing that they

are major. The petitioner no. 1 has applied for conversion of her religion under The Uttar

Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in the prescribed form

before the District Magistrate, Bareilly on 18.07.2022, copy of the said application is

filed along with supplementary affidavit as Annexure-S.A.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the District Magistrate, Bareilly have

granted certificate which is annexed at page 12 of the supplementary affidavit. On perusal

of the same, the same does not appears that the permission has been granted.

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to file a counter affidavit annexing the grant of

certificate as prescribed under the Act, if any on or before the next date fixed.

List as fresh on 05.12.2022.

Till the next date of listing, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall ensure that the petitioners

are not being harassed by the respondent no. 4."

Counsel for the petitioners argued that in compliance of the

order dated 20.10.2022, petitioners have applied for certificate

under Section 8 and 9 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful

Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 which has been stated in

para-5 of the counter affidavit

Considering the aforesaid facts, direction issued by co-ordinate

Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.10.2022 and 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.

The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the

law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living

with their free will, then, nobody, including their parents, has

authority to interfere with their living together. Reference may

be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of

Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and

others, (1976) 3 SCC 234 wherein the Court has held thus:

"7. ... Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at

present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed

upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be

imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the

petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in

such a matter."

The Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and

another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 has held as under:

"In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and

those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country,

and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the

parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the

maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter,

but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the

person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct

that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any

boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman

or man who is a major, the