Choosing a life partner is the rights reserved in the hands of Adults: Allahabad HC; Scraps Hindu-Muslim Row
- “Even the state cannot object to the relationship of two adults” : Allahabad HC
- “The contempt of a person’s choice is against the right to freedom”, HC on 'Inter-religion marriage'
UP: The FIR filed against Muslim Man by the parents of his hindu wife which ignited debate and argument of “love-jihad” on various social media platform has been scraped by the Allahabad High Court.
The apex body affirmed that two adults have the right to live together or choose their life partner, whether they are from a different faith, or they are of the same sex or opposite sex.
The judgment of HC came forward based on the petition filed by Salamat Ansari and three others, from the Vishnupura police station area, located at Kushinagar.
“We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat Ansari 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. The Courts and the Constitutional Courts, in particular, are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the two-judge bench of the Allahabad HC responded.
“Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty,” the order read.
Allegedly, Salamat and Priyanka Kharawar got married on August 19, 2019, as per Muslim rituals; the marriage happened against the will of their families. After marriage, Priyanka’s father had filed an FIR under the POCSO Act, alleging the kidnapping of their daughter. Salamat’s petition in the HC was filed demanding security and cancellation of the FIR.
According to Priyanka’s father, religious conversion for marriage is prohibited. “Such marriage is not valid in the eyes of law” – he said. On this, the court said that it does not see Salamat and Priyanka as Muslim and Hindu and that disrespecting a person’s choice is against the ‘right to freedom of choice’. The court added that Article-21 of the constitution gives freedom of living peacefully with a person of one’s own choice.