Illegal Conversion Voids Marriage, Allahabad High Court Denies Legal Recognition

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has declared that a marriage solemnized following an illegal religious conversion is invalid under the law, denying legal recognition to the couple involved. The verdict, delivered by Justice Saurabh Srivastava on Tuesday, came in response to a writ petition filed by Mohammad Bin Qasim alias Akbar, seeking protection for his marital life with Jainab Parveen alias Chandrakanta. The court’s decision underscores the stringent provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and has far-reaching implications for interfaith marriages in the state.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Qasim, a Muslim, and Chandrakanta, originally a Hindu, had married under Muslim law after Chandrakanta’s conversion to Islam on February 22, 2025. A conversion certificate was purportedly issued by Khanqahe Alia Arifia, and the couple solemnized their marriage on May 26, 2025, with a certificate issued by a Quazi. However, the additional chief standing counsel challenged the authenticity of the conversion certificate, citing a statement from Jamia Arifia’s secretary and manager in Saiyed Sarawan, Kaushambi, asserting that no such certificate was issued by the institution on the specified date.

Justice Srivastava, after reviewing the rival contentions and records, ruled that a conversion based on a forged document violates the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Act, which mandates procedural compliance, including prior notice to authorities and verification processes. The court stated, “Conversion on a forged document cannot determine any of the essential ingredients as mentioned in the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Act.”

Consequently, the marriage, which under Muslim law requires both parties to be followers of the same faith, was deemed unsustainable. “Once the conversion in respect of Petitioner No. 2 (Chandrakanta) is illegal, both the petitioners cannot be recognised as a married couple in the eyes of law,” the court observed.

Also Read: Umar Khalid Challenges Delhi High Court’s Bail Denial in 2020 Riots Case

Despite the ruling, the court offered a pathway forward, directing the petitioners to register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which facilitates interfaith unions without requiring religious conversion. This act, designed to provide a secular framework for marriages, allows couples of different faiths to wed through a civil process, bypassing religious rituals. The court’s directive reflects a balance between upholding legal standards and ensuring the couple’s right to marry, provided they comply with statutory requirements.

In a protective measure, the court addressed Chandrakanta’s unwillingness to return to her parental home, noting her expressed consent to reside in a women’s protection home in Prayagraj. The court ordered her placement in the facility until the couple secures a marriage certificate under the Special Marriage Act, ensuring her safety amid potential familial or social pressures. This decision aligns with the court’s broader responsibility to safeguard individual rights, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships, which often face societal scrutiny in Uttar Pradesh.

The court also imposed an exemplary cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioners’ counsel for presenting a case reliant on an allegedly forged document, directing that the amount be deposited in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre within 15 days. This penalty underscores the judiciary’s stance against frivolous or misleading litigation, reinforcing accountability in legal proceedings.

The ruling comes in the context of heightened scrutiny over religious conversions in Uttar Pradesh, where the 2021 anti-conversion law has sparked debates over personal freedom and state regulation. The law requires individuals intending to convert to notify a district magistrate 60 days in advance and mandates investigations to rule out coercion or fraud. Non-compliance can lead to penalties, including imprisonment and fines. Data from the Uttar Pradesh Home Department indicates over 400 cases registered under the law since its enactment, with several convictions, highlighting its rigorous enforcement.

Legal experts view the judgment as a precedent-setting clarification on the intersection of conversion and marriage laws. “The court has reaffirmed that procedural lapses in conversion nullify subsequent legal acts, like marriage, under religious personal laws,” said a Prayagraj-based advocate. However, critics argue the ruling could deter interfaith couples, particularly in cases where conversion is a genuine choice, due to the law’s stringent requirements and social stigmas.

The case highlights ongoing tensions in Uttar Pradesh, where interfaith relationships often attract legal and societal challenges. The court’s directive to pursue the Special Marriage Act offers a pragmatic solution, but the broader implications for personal liberties and religious freedoms remain a subject of intense debate. As the couple navigates the next steps, the ruling serves as a stark reminder of the legal complexities surrounding conversion and marriage in India’s evolving socio-legal landscape.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Seeks Asset Disclosure in Sunjay Kapur Estate Dispute