JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The petition has been presented as Habeas Corpus under the terms of one agreement for marriage between the two persons of different religion.? However, such a marriage is not permissible in the eye of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of? Gullipilli Sowria Raj v. Bandaru Pavani Alias Gullipili Pavani (2009) 1 SCC 714 .? Further it has been argued by the learned A.G.A. that the Habeas Corpus petition also does not lie in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. and Ors.? AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1625. 3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gullipilli Sowria Raj (Supra) has held that the marriage of? a Hindu with another professing a different faith is void. 4. In light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the marriage, which is void, cannot be legalized under the strength of? the instant petition, therefore,? it is dismissed.? 5. Since the deponent (Salman Ahamad) has misused the process of the Court, the cost of Rs. 5,000/- is also imposed upon him, which shall be paid to Vandana daughter of? Dhirendra Yadav, R/o Bari Nahar, Tahsil Milkipur, Police Station Kumarganj, District Faizabad within one month, in default it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.