Right to Choose a Partner is a Fundamental Right Says Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court recently in a judgement pointedly declared that “Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of the religion they profess, is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty.
Petitioner's father files FIR against Daughter and Son in law
The petitioners filed a writ petition praying for quashing of the FIR and to stop their arrest. The FIR was lodged by the father of the petitioner no. 4 - Priyanka Kharwar who got married to Salamat Ansari and then willingly changed her religion to Islam. However, Priyanka's father (the respondent) filed an FIR under Sections 363, 366, 352, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, accusing Salamat of a horde of crimes
Salamat Ansari (Husband) and Priyanka Kharwar @ Alia (Wife) along with two others moved the High Court seeking quashing of FIR (lodged by the father [KJ2]
Petitioners claim competency for entering into a contract of marriage
The petitioners contended that both of them were major and competent to enter into a contract of marriage at the time of marriage on 19th of August 2019. The marriage was conducted as per Muslim rituals, thereafter petitioner Priyanka Kharwar repudiated her Hindu Identity and converted to Islam, The petitioners also informed the Court that they were living together peacefully since a year. They alleged that the respondent lodged the FIR for personal vendetta in an attempt to break the marital ties. Hence the petitioners prayed for quashing the FIR.
Marriage has no paramountcy in law, claim respondents
The respondents argued the matter on the following two points:
They relied on the verdict passed in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi’s case in support of their arguments.
"No one can object to the relationship of two major individuals who are living together out of their own will"- Allahabad HC
The Division Bench headed by Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal observed that “We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even the state can have any objection to the relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together” further the court observed that the two judgments passed earlier, that is Priyanshi @ Km. Shamren and others v. the State of U.P. and Another [Writ C No. 14288 followed and the Smt Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra and Another vs. State of U.P. and others. [Writ C No. 57068 of 2014], are “not laying good law”.
Analysing the prior judgement the High Court held that “None of these judgments dealt with the issue of life and liberty of two matured individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live. We hold the judgments in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi as not laying good law.
Conversion to Islam was voluntary: Allahabad HC
Further, the HC examined that the intercession of the courts is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which includes the right to freedom of choice and the right to live with dignity. Moving further the court held that the conversion in question, was voluntary and not forced, and “We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown-up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year.” And thus observing the overall contention the court quashed the FIR against Salamat and said it was up to the woman to decide if she wanted to meet her father.
 (1)_20241122153242_original_image_7.webp)
