Hc frees a married, converted woman | Bhopal News

0
Ashutosh.Shukla
Bhopal/Jabalpur: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that no “moral police” can be allowed when two adults decide to live together through marriage or a cohabiting relationship of their own free will.
With this, the Bench of Judge Nandita Dubey rejected the argument of the MP Government lawyer that under the provisions of the Freedom of Religion Act 2021, conversion for the purpose of marriage is not not legal; and the marriage thus solemnized is legally null and void and the girl must be sent to Nari Niketan for ‘rehabilitation’.
The decision came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by Guljar Ahmed, who had married Hindu daughter Arti Sahu, who converted to Islam but was later taken by her parents to her hometown of Varanasi. Judge Dubey ordered the police to release the woman to the applicant, as she wished, and to ensure that she returned home safely and was no longer threatened by her parents.
Guljar Khan had filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming that he and Arti had married in Maharashtra and that she voluntarily converted to Islam, but that her parents forcibly took her away and took her away. illegally detained.
By order of the judge, the 19-year-old woman was presented to court by videoconference. In her statement, she told the court that she voluntarily married Khan and converted to Islam. She said her parents and grandparents took her by force and she was beaten and constantly threatened to make a statement against her husband. She told the court that she wanted to accompany the petitioner because she had voluntarily married him.
The court emphasized that the petitioner and his wife are adults. “No moral policy can be allowed in such cases where two persons of full age are willing to remain together, whether by marriage or in a cohabiting relationship,” Judge Dubey said.
Judge Dubey ordered the government and police to hand Arti over to her husband and ensure they return home safely. “The law enforcement authorities are also responsible for ensuring that in the future, the corpus and the petitioner are not threatened by the parents of the corpus,” the court said.
Share.

Comments are closed.