HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10299 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 4 and Sri Sukh Deo Singh, learned Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent No.5, same is taken on record. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioners in respect of the marriage of the petitioners No. 1 & 2. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have got married after conversion of petitioner No.2 on 17.10.2025. The marriage has also been solemnized on the said date. Copy of the conversion certificate and marriage certificate have been filed as Annexures- 3 & 4 to the writ petition. 4. It is argued that subsequent to the marriage, both the petitioners are living together as husband and wife but the authorities are harassing the petitioners at the behest of respondent No.5, who is father of petitioner No.1. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA as well as Sri Sukh Deo Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 have argued that the very conversion of petitioner No.2 is bad keeping in view of Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Lawful Conversion Religion Act, 2021. 6. Learned AGA further states on the basis of instructions sent by the Sub Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Riya Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Inspector- Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Police Station Bandhua Kala, District Sultanpur that petitioners are not being harassed in any manner. 7. No challenge has been raised by the respondent No.5 to the alleged conversion which has taken place of petitioner No.2. Even if, the conversion of the petitioner No.2 and the marriage of the petitioners is said to be illegal, consequently, once the petitioners are residing together and both are major, it cannot be said that they cannot reside with each other keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkumar & Anr vs State of Kerala & Ors : (2018) 16 SCC 602, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- "10. .... For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that "live-in relationship" is now recognised by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005." 8. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner. 9. It is made clear that if any F.I.R. is already registered on the issue, the order passed by this Court shall automatically stand discharged. 10. It is however made clear that this Court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the alleged marriage. . (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) November 11, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 10299 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench