Hindu woman deceived into marriage, forced to convert to Islam, and separated from her children by her Muslim husband

Case ID : d3272bf | Location : Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Wed, 21 January, 2026

Case ID : d3272bf

Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

21 January, 2026

Hindu woman deceived into marriage, forced to convert to Islam, and separated from her children by her Muslim husband

Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes

Forced conversion after marriage

Brainwashed and/or groomed

Victim says she was brainwashed/groomed

Case Summary

In Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, a Hindu woman, Priyanka, was converted, threatened, domestically abused and separated from her children by a Muslim man, Mohammad Faiz. The victim met Mohammad Faiz Warsi during her college years in Lucknow. Under emotional manipulation, sustained pressure, and promises of marriage, she was induced to convert from Hinduism to Islam on 6 June 2003, after which her name was changed to Aliya Bano. Following the conversion and marriage, the woman was subjected to continuous physical violence, psychological abuse, and extreme control by her husband and his family. Her original Hindu identity documents, educational certificates, and personal papers were taken away, effectively depriving her of legal recognition and individual autonomy. Over the years, she was repeatedly moved between rented accommodations, compelled to work outside the home, and forced to surrender her earnings, while resistance resulted in beatings, threats, or confinement. On multiple occasions, she was locked inside dark rooms as punishment, causing severe mental trauma and persistent fear for her life. The abuse continued even after the birth of her children. The situation escalated in May 2025, when she was brutally assaulted and forcibly expelled from the marital home. After being driven out, she remained in hiding and changed locations frequently due to ongoing threats to her life. Her children were taken away by her husband and his family, and she was completely prevented from meeting or communicating with them. Their whereabouts were concealed, and any attempt to assert her maternal rights was met with intimidation and coercion. Following the complaint, Lucknow Police registered an FIR and initiated an investigation. Authorities examined the circumstances surrounding the conversion, domestic cruelty, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, and the forced separation of the children. The case attracted provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, along with relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to cruelty, assault, and custodial interference. At the time of reporting, the investigation remained ongoing.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This incident has been added to the tracker under the category- Crimes against women in relationships and other sexual crimes. Under this, the first sub-category selected is- Forced conversion after marriage. In such cases, a non-Hindu man marries a Hindu woman, and the force/pressure to convert to any Abrahamic faith, like Islam, begins after marriage. In such cases, typically, two patterns emerge. First, when the relationship is consensual, and the religious identity of the perpetrator is known to the Hindu woman in the relationship. The marriage could be under the Special Marriages Act, where neither parties are required to convert their religion for the marriage to be considered legitimate. While the victim in such cases enters matrimony assuming that religious identity is not a barrier, the non-Hindu man starts to pressure the woman to convert her religion after marriage. The second is when the woman gets into a marriage with the man, pretending to share her faith. Later, when the truth is revealed, the man starts pressuring the woman to convert her religion and give up her religious identity. In both situations, there is the application of force by the perpetrator, including the denial of the woman’s religious rights. Some of the means by which the woman is forced/pressured to convert include force-feeding beef, being forced to read the Kalma, being forced to wear a hijab, forced to undergo Halala, etc. There are several instances where, after marriage, the woman voluntarily converts to Islam. Such cases are often argued to be a result of religious brainwashing; however, for the purpose of documenting religiously motivated hate crimes, in the absence of the victim complaining of forced conversion, such cases do not form a part of the database. The other sub-category selected is- Brainwashed and/or groomed, and within this, the tertiary category chosen is- Victim says she was brainwashed/groomed. In our database, we have not added incidents where women have converted to another religion of their free will and no allegations of forced/involuntary conversion have been made. However, there are certain cases of conversion where the consent itself is a result of the brainwashing or grooming of a minor by the non-Hindu perpetrator trying to victimise a woman for her Hindu religious identity. The phenomenon of grooming points to non-Hindu perpetrators identifying their Hindu victims’ vulnerabilities and exploiting them over months and sometimes years, to extract the supposed ‘consent’ in order to convert their religion. In most cases of grooming, the victims are minors or the grooming started when the victim was a minor. In other cases of grooming, the non-Hindu perpetrator brainwashes and grooms a minor victim to extract their trust and then proceeds to rape them repeatedly with the intent of converting them to their faith. It is pertinent to understand here that when the victim is a minor, the ‘consent’ to convert or enter into a romantic relationship with an adult itself is redundant – addressed by POCSO. While every case of conversion of a minor and incidents of establishing a physical relationship with a minor by an adult is a crime, for the purpose of this database, a case would be considered a hate crime only if there is a distinct religious angle to the grooming. For example, in the UK, if a Hindu minor is targeted by Pakistani grooming gangs, it would be considered a hate crime because the victims are specifically targeted owing to their non-Muslim religious identity with the perpetrators being Muslim. In other cases, if a Hindu minor is brainwashed into entering a physical relationship with the non-Hindu adult perpetrator and the family alleges grooming/brainwashing of the minor to convert her religion, it would form a part of this database. If the victim is a Hindu adult, the case would form a part of this database only if the victim herself says that she was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. However, if the victim is deceased (murdered or otherwise), the case would form a part of this database if her family/friends provided testimony that the victim was brainwashed/groomed to convert her religion. Since these crimes have a distinct religious angle where the victim is being targeted owing to her Hindu religious identity, these cases are considered a hate crime. This case is recorded as a hate crime against a Hindu woman because the harm inflicted on her is inseparable from coercive religious control exercised after marriage. The defining marker is that her consent to conversion was obtained through emotional manipulation and sustained pressure rather than free religious choice, followed by punishment and abuse whenever she resisted religious domination. The targeting begins with the deliberate erosion of her Hindu identity. Conversion was not treated as a spiritual decision but as an entry point into total control. The forced change of name, confiscation of identity documents, and severing of links with her Hindu past functioned as mechanisms to erase her religious self and replace it with an imposed identity. This identity erasure is a recognised marker of religious persecution rather than a private marital issue. A second marker lies in the pattern of abuse being conditional on religious compliance. Physical violence, confinement, threats, and psychological cruelty intensified when she asserted autonomy or deviated from expectations imposed after conversion. This establishes a direct link between religious non-compliance and punishment, showing that abuse was used as a tool to enforce submission and obedience rather than arising from ordinary domestic conflict. The prolonged isolation she endured further reinforces the religious motivation. By being moved repeatedly, denied access to support networks, and stripped of personal documentation, she was rendered dependent and voiceless. Such isolation is a common feature in coercive conversion environments, where control is maintained by cutting off the victim from any alternative worldview or source of help. The separation from her children constitutes an additional layer of coercion. Denying a mother access to her children after she attempted to assert her rights serves as emotional blackmail and a means of enforcing silence. This form of control reinforces religious domination by making resistance carry unbearable personal consequences. Although the complaint was filed after a long duration of marriage, the delayed reporting does not erase the religious markers embedded in the abuse. Survivors of coercive religious environments often remain trapped for years due to fear, isolation, and lack of support. The duration instead highlights the depth of control and psychological conditioning involved, consistent with patterns of religious brainwashing and sustained coercion. Taken together, the forced conversion, identity erasure, punishment for non-compliance, prolonged isolation, and custodial coercion demonstrate that the victim was targeted and controlled because of her original Hindu identity and her resistance to imposed religious authority. The harm, therefore, constitutes a religiously motivated crime against a woman, rooted in coercive conversion and enforced religious subjugation rather than a private domestic dispute. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker records incident dates based on when the crime occurred, rather than when the media reports it. However, in this case, media reports have not specified the exact date when the victim's ordeal began. Therefore, for documentation purposes, 22nd January, 2026, the date of media reporting, has been selected as the indicative incident date.