Considering that a legally married Muslim woman cannot go outside marriage and start her relationship with another man, the Allahabad High Court denied providing protection to a Muslim woman who was in a live-in relationship with her Hindu friend.
The act is defined as Zina (fornication) and Haram (prohibited by God) as per Sharia law, the court observed.
The court announced its judgement on February 23.
The woman and her live-in partner had moved to court with a protection plea, stating that they were adults and living on their own. However, a bench of Justice Renu Agarwal rejected the plea and said that the “criminal act” of the woman “cannot be supported and protected” by the court. They were also imposed with a cost of Rs 2,000 for having a live-in relationship.
Further, the court observed that the petitioner woman had not acquired any divorce decree from any appropriate authority.
The court said, “The first petitioner is living with the second petitioner in contravention of the provisions of Muslim law (Shariat), wherein a legally wedded wife cannot marry outside marriage, and this act of woman is defined as Zina and Haram.”
“If we go to the criminality of the act of the first petitioner, she may be prosecuted for the offense under IPC sections 494 (marrying again during the life-time of husband or wife) and 495 (same offense with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted); as such, the relationship is not covered within the phrase of live-in relationship or relationship in the nature of marriage,” it added.
Reports suggest that the woman was married to a man named Mohsin, who remarried two years ago and had begun cohabiting with his second wife. Consequently, the petitioner woman moved to her matrimonial home, but because of her husband’s alleged abuse, she decided to live with a Hindu man in a live-in relationship.
The woman claimed that her family was interfering in her peaceful relationship with her live-in partner. Following this, the couple registered a protection plea, seeking protection against the acts of her family members.
Meanwhile, the court opposed her plea by submitting that since the woman had not sought any divorce decree from her husband and had begun living with the second petitioner, the relationship cannot be protected by the law.
