In a recent judicial pronouncement in Prayagraj, the Allahabad High Court rebuffed a protective shield for a married Muslim woman engaged in a cohabitative liaison with her Hindu companion. The court opined that a legally wedded Muslim woman is confined within the bounds of matrimony and engaging in an extramarital relationship would be deemed ‘zina’ (fornication) and ‘haram’ (prohibited by Allah) under Sharia law.
The woman, aged 26, and her 25-year-old partner sought legal refuge on the premise of their adulthood and independent cohabitation. However, their plea was summarily dismissed by Justice Renu Agarwal, who decried the woman’s “criminal act” as ineligible for judicial support. The court imposed a penalty of ₹2,000 on the cohabiting duo.
Highlighting that the petitioner had not procured a divorce decree from the competent authority and was ensconced in a live-in relationship, Justice Agarwal remarked, “The first petitioner is cohabiting with the second petitioner in contravention of Muslim law (Shariat), wherein a legally wedded wife cannot stray outside the bonds of matrimony, and this transgression is categorized as ‘zina’ and ‘haram.'”
Delving into the potential criminality of the woman’s conduct, the court suggested that she could face prosecution under IPC sections 494 (remarriage during the spouse’s lifetime) and 495 (concealing a former marriage when contracting a subsequent one). It clarified that the relationship did not fall under the purview of a live-in relationship or a relationship akin to marriage.
The court was addressing a protection plea from the Muslim woman and her Hindu live-in partner, seeking sanctuary from the interference of the woman’s parents and other family members. The petition asserted that their tranquil cohabitation was being disrupted.
The petitioner had been previously wedded to a certain Mohsin, who remarried two years ago and currently cohabits with his second wife. Alleging mistreatment, the woman opted to cohabit with a Hindu man in a live-in arrangement.
During the proceedings, the state counsel opposed her plea, contending that her failure to obtain a divorce decree rendered their cohabitation legally unprotected. The court’s judgment on February 23 emphasized that, since the Muslim woman had not formally sought religious conversion under sections 8 and 9 of the Conversion Act and had not obtained a divorce, she was ineligible for legal protection.Q