BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

and

W.M.P.(MD)No.22719 of 2022

Fathima Riyasa ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Union of India,

Represented by Secretary,

Ministry of Home Affairs NDCC-II Building,

Jaisingh Road, New Delhi. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by the Secretary to Government,

Public (Foreigners-I) Department,

Chennai - 9.

3.The District Collector,

Pudukottai District,

Pudukottai. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No. 3 to forward the petitioners application dated 06.12.2022

to Respondent Nos .1 and 2 and consequently directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and provide Indian Citizenship to the petitioner within the time period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan, Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1.

Mr.M.Lingadurai, Spl. Government Pleader for R2 & R3.

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.The writ petitioner is a Srilankan citizen. She fell in love with one Abdul Jabar, an Indian citizen, and eventually married him. The marriage was solemnized in Srilanka on 16.06.2018. The petitioner came to India on an Indian visa. The couple set up their matrimonial home in Pudukkottai District. Two children were born through the wedlock. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's Indian visa as well as Srilankan passport expired. She has sought renewal of both. She has also applied for Indian citizenship. Since it has not been forwarded by the District Collector, Pudukkottai to the Central Government, this writ petition has been filed seeking grant of Indian citizenship.

3. The Central Government has filed counter affidavit. Their stand is that since the petitioner is an illegal immigrant, her case for grant of citizenship cannot be considered.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions. This is a case of cross-border love. Love can transcend national boundaries too. There is no constitutional or statutory requirement that marriage can be only between two citizens. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stipulates that a marriage can be solemnized between any two Hindus subject to fulfilment of certain conditions which are silent on citizenship. Section 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act talks of marriage between persons one or both of whom is (or are) a Christian or Christians. Likewise, no such restriction is found in Mohammedan Law relating to marriage. Therefore, the marriage between the petitioner and Abdul Jabar is certainly a valid marriage. Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 has recognized the right to marriage and the right to found a family to be a human right in the following terms:

“Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

Right to privacy is a fundamental right and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in more than one case had held that one has a right to choose one's spouse and that this right cannot be interfered with. The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India(vide AIR 2018 SC 1933 (Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM))

5. Once this position is acknowledged, the logical corollary is that the petitioner is entitled to the conjugal company of her husband. When the marriage between such spouses is in subsistence and there is no strain in the matrimonial relationship, right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include the right to live with one's spouse. Article 21 is applicable to persons ie., citizens and non-citizens alike. The petitioner did not enter India illegally. She is a Srilankan passport holder and she was granted with Indian Visa. Armed with these legal documents, she landed in India. Technically, she is an illegal immigrant because her travel document has expired. It