Sr. No. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 3109/2025 Waqar Younis and another …. Petitioner(s) V/s Through:- Mr. K.K.Pathan, Advocate along with petitioners 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Principal Secretary Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Rajouri. 3. The S.H.O., Police Station, Manjakote, District Rajouri. 4. Mohd. Safier S/o Bagh Younis R/O Derari, Tehsil Manjakote District Rajouri. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1 to 3 Mr. Zulkarnain Chowdhary, Advocate along with respondent No.4. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 19.11.2025 1. By this petition, petitioner herein have sought a direction upon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide adequate security cover to the petitioners, who have solemnized marriage against the wishes of respondent No.4 and his relatives who were extending open threats to the petitioners with a further direction to them to ensure that no harassment is caused at the behest of respondent No.4 and his relatives. Besides, a direction is also sought upon respondent No.4 and his relatives not to interfere in the marital life of the petitioners. WP (C) No3109/2025 2. On 10.11.2025, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, directed Inspector General of Police (IGP), Jammu Zone and the Senior Superintendent of Police(SSP), Rajouri to ensure that petitioner No.2-Efat Naz Khokher in no manner is subjected to any sort of harassment whatsoever from the end of respondent No.4 or for that matter her parental side and that the petitioner No.2 is at liberty to exercise her free will in the matter of her selection to whom to reside with and the place to reside it. 3. Respondent No.4-Mohd. Safier, who is present in the Court, states that initially he was not happy with the decision of his daughter-petitioner No.2 to marry petitioner No.1-Waqar Younis, but now he respects the decision of his daughter and is ready to accept petitioner No.1 as his son-in-law, being the choice of his daughter. 4. In view of the statement made by respondent No.4, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition along with connected application(s), if any, is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be free to approach the concerned police, if any kind of harassment is caused to them at the behest of their relatives. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE JAMMU 19.11.2025 Vinod. Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No