The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered law enforcement officials to halt any punitive or coercive action against an interfaith couple facing criminal charges, pending a further hearing later this month.
Justice Gajendra Singh, sitting at the Indore bench of the High Court, issued the interim directive on Monday during a hearing on the couple’s writ petition. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the week beginning July 27.
The petitioners, who gained public attention during the 2025 Mahakumbh in Prayagraj, sought judicial relief after the Maheshwar Municipal Council nullified the woman’s birth certificate. This cancellation led to a police case being registered against her husband.
Criminal Charges And Bail Rejection
An First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the husband at the Maheshwar police station in Khargone district. The charges include kidnapping, enticing a minor, and fraudulent marriage under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). He is also charged under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for an adult male marrying a child, as well as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Prior to approaching the High Court, the husband’s application for anticipatory bail was turned down by a special court handling cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Allegations Of Document Manipulation
In their petition, the couple contended that the woman’s birth documents were manipulated as part of a criminal conspiracy to falsely represent her as a minor when she wed. They asserted that the Maheshwar Municipal Council cancelled her original birth certificate without adhering to standard legal procedures following opposition from her family.
The petition states that the couple wed on March 11 at a temple in Kerala. The woman maintains that her actual date of birth is January 1, 2008, citing her Aadhaar card, PAN card, other government identification, and the initial birth certificate issued by the Maheshwar Nagar Panchayat as proof.
Safety Concerns And Legal Representation
The couple also stated in their petition that their marriage was communalized and branded as “love jihad,” which they claim has created a direct threat to their personal safety.
During Monday’s proceedings, senior advocate Vivek Krishna Tankha and advocate Jerry Lopes presented arguments on behalf of the husband. The state government was represented by Additional Advocate General Rahul Sethi and government advocate Suneet Kapoor.
