ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief(s):-

i.

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to provide the security to the petitioners from the family members of the petitioner no.1. ii.

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to provide the follow-up guard to the petitioners for appearing before the Marriage Registration Officer i.e. Addition Collector Anuppur in Special Marriage Act Case fixed on 25.04.2024. iii.

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to not registered any case against the petitioner No.2 in respect of kidnapping of petitioner No.1 or other related offences in the complaint made by the family members of the petitioner fo.1

iv.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may also is granted.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that petitioners are in love with each other. They have already approached the Marriage Officer under Special Marriage Act, however on account of objections raised by respondent No.5, they are not in a position to appear before the Marriage Officer. As a result, their marriage is not being registered. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the W.P. No.9589/2024 case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, petitioners may be granted Police protection.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No.5. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 has left her house by taking jewellery of all the family members and has also taken away cash amount. It is further submitted that since the petitioner No.1 wants to perform an inter-religion marriage and in case if it takes place, then respondent No.5 and his family would be boycotted by the Society, therefore petitioners are not entitled for any protection.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Petitioners belong to different religions, therefore counsel for the petitioners was directed to address this Court as to whether marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2 will be a valid marriage or not?

6. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since petitioners want to perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act, therefore Nikah is not required. It is further submitted that both the petitioners have come to a consensus that petitioner No.1 shall continue to follow her Hindu religion, whereas petitioner No.2 shall continue to follow his Islam religion and nobody would interfere with religious feelings of each other.

It is further submitted that there is no intention of petitioner No.1 to accept the Islam religion.

7. The next question for consideration is as to whether marriage of a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl would a valid marriage or not?

8. The aforesaid question is no more res integra.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Salim (D) Through LRs. & Ors. Vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through LRs. & Ors. decided on 22/01/2019 in Civil Appeal No.5158/2013 has held as under:- W.P. No.9589/2024 "8. .... In the 21st edition of Mulla, at page 338, §250, marriage is defined as follows:-

“Marriage (nikah) is defined to be a contract which has for its object the procreation and the legalizing of children.”

Thus it appears that a marriage according to Muslim law is not a sacrament but a civil contract. Essentials of a marriage are dealt with in § 252 at page 340 of Mulla (21st edition) as follows:

“It is essential to the validity of a marriage that there should be a proposal made by or on behalf of one of the parties to the marriage, and an acceptance of the proposal by or on behalf of the other, in the presence and hearing of two male or one male and two female witnesses, who must be sane and adult Mohamedans. The proposal and acceptance must both be expressed at one meeting; a

proposal made at one meeting and an acceptance made at another meeting do