Representative Image
Prayagraj: As long as women voluntarily convert to Islam and marry based on their choice of person, no individual, including the father, can interfere in that decision, stated the Allahabad High Court.
The court made the observation on July 30, while hearing a petition from two sisters, aged 20 and 35. Represented by their counsel, the sisters said that their conversion from Hinduism to Islam was voluntary and that they chose to marry of their own free will, arguing that it was their fundamental right.
Justice Sandeep Jain then ordered the Uttar Pradesh Police and the father to produce the two sisters, Anshu Bhatia alias Amina Anshu Bhatia (35) and Divya Bhatia alias Zoya Diya Bhatia (20), before the court on August 6. The sisters had alleged in the court that their father registered a case in Agra in May 2025, preventing them from following through with their personal choices.
The sisters’ plea said that the father was aggrieved with their decision to marry outside Hindu religion and lodged a false first information report (FIR) under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita section 87, pertaining to punishment for kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her into marriage.
The plea added that the father, with police assistance, illegally confined the two sisters and restricted their right to liberty. Representing the sisters, Advocate Ali Bin Saif argued that the conversion was voluntary and was a result of independent exercise of conscience and free choice. He contended that the provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, do not apply to the case.
After hearing the arguments, the Court observed that prima facie the petitioners, being adults, can take independent decisions regarding their faith, marriage and place of residence, and future course of life.
The bench held that since the plea said the sisters voluntarily renounced their original faith and if found to be true, then such interference would amount to “unwarranted encroachment upon their constitutionally protected rights to dignity, liberty, privacy, and decisional autonomy.”
“If these assertions are ultimately found to be correct, any interference by respondent (father) or any other person in the exercise of such personal choices would amount to an unwarranted encroachment upon their constitutionally protected rights to dignity, privacy, personal liberty, and decisional autonomy.”
The High Court said that in such cases, the most important duty was to understand whether the petitioners were acting of their free will or under coercion. To ascertain the two women’s safety, the court said it was appropriate to directly interact with them regarding the voluntariness of their decisions.
The bench asked for a clear personal affidavit explaining reasons for non-compliance if the two sisters fail to show on August 6 before the court.
This post was last modified on August 2, 2026 6:43 pm