Nidhi Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1302 MP

      The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 WP-6633-2021
(NIDHI SINGH CHOUHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)




Indore, Dated : 06-04-2021

      Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri    Valmik      Sakargayen,        learned      counsel      for   the

respondent/State.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226

of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

I) To allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order.

II) To direct the respondents not to take any coercive step against the petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 and family member of petitioner No.2. III) To direct the respondents to provide protection to the petitioners and help to solemnize their marriage according to the rules provided by the Indian law under Special Marriage Act.

IV) To direct the respondents to protect the right of petitioner no.1 as well as of petitioner No.2 in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Safiya Sultana v/s. State of U.P.

V) Costs of the petition be awarded.

Admittedly, petitioner No.1 Nidhi Singh Chouhan belongs to

Hindu religion whereas the petitioner No.2 Irfan Qureshi is from

Muslim community and both have decided to solemnize marriage with

each other and for this purpose they have already applied for

registration of their marriage under the provisions of Special Marriage

Act 1954. The documents in respect of the same have been placed on

record.

Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioner No.1 is 23 years old whereas petitioner No.2 is 22 years old. The documents in respect of their age like; mark sheet and

Aadhar card etc. have also placed on record. He further submits that

since it is an inter religion marriage, petitioner No.2 Irfan Qureshi is

apprehending that he and petitioner No.1 Nidhi may also be harmed by

the family members of petitioner No.1. Counsel further submits that

till all the procedural formalities are completed under the Special

Marriage Act, it may be directed to the Police to provide protection to

the petitioners.

Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned counsel for the

respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and

submitted that petition is liable to be dismissed as the same has been

filed only with a view to avoid penal consequences of M.P. Freedom

of Religion Ordinance, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the

Ordinance, 2020). He further submitted that even as per their own

averments in para 5.4 of the petition, the petitioners have already

solemnized marriage through Hindu as also by Islamic ritual which is

clearly in violation to Section 3 of M.P. Freedom of Religion

Ordinance, 2020. Thus, it is submitted that the petition, being

misconceived is liable to be dismissed and no relief as sought by the

petitioners be granted.

Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of

the record as also the provision of Ordinance, 2020, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for

interference by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution as both

of them are major/adults and have consented to reside with each other as husband and wife after marriage despite their religious differences

and they have also applied for registration of their marriage under the

Special Marriage Act before the competent authority. In the wake of

their decision to marry, it is possible that some reaction of resentment

be displayed by the family members of petitioner No.1 and any

untoward action may be taken against the petitioner no.1 and 2 and for

this purpose, they would certainly require some protection. So far as

the provisions of M.P. Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020 is

concerned, s.3 reads as under:-

3. Prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to other religion-(1) No person shall,-

(a) convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person by use of misrepresentation, allurement, use of threat or force, undue influence, coercion or marriage or by any other fraudulent means:

(b) abet or conspire such conversion. (2) Any conversion in contravention of provision of this section shall be deemed null and void.

A bare perusal of the same would reveal that s.3 of the

Ordinance provides for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one

religion to other religion and for which certain conditions have been

prescribed and unless the ingredients of Section 3 are met, it cannot be

said that an offence under Section 3 has been committed. In the case

on hand, on perusal of the petition as also the affidavits filed by both

the petitioners on record, this Court is satisfied that both the petitioners

intends to marry each other with each other's consent and thus it is not

a case falling under Section 3 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion

Ordinance, 2020 and as such the objections raised by the counsel for

the respondent are hereby rejected.

Consequently, the petition stands allowed and the petitioners are

directed to approach to the respondent No.3, the Superintendent of

Police, Indore and submit their representation along with a certified

copy of this order, and the respondent No.3 is directed to ensure and

provide proper protection to the petitioners, as and when required, till

their application under Special Marriage Act is decided.

With the aforesaid directions the petition stands disposed of.

                                      (SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
jyoti                                                   JUDGE