HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No.3200/2025 Date of pronouncement: 17.11.2025 Date of uploading: 17.11.2025 01. Sonika Devi, Age 18 years W/o Karan Kumar D/o Sham Lal R/o Kothey Chorli, Banachak, Jammu. 02. Karan Kumar, Aged 21 years S/o Keemat Ram R/o Kothey Chroli, Banachak, Jammu. ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Ashray Anand, Advocate. V/s The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through Director General of Police Police Headquarters, Gulshan Ground Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Samba. 01. The Station House Officer Ramgarh, Samba. 02. Sham Lal S/o Amarnath R/o Radwan Khurd, Ramgarh Samba. ….Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER (17.11.2025) 1. Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage according to Hindu Rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and Sr.No. 152 2 WP(C) No.3200/2025 Page No. 2. are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from official respondents. 2. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition. 3. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for. 4. Keeping in view the prayer made, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to official respondents to provide adequate security cover to petitioners and act in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U. P. (2006) 5 SCC 475, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others AIR 2018 SC 1601, subject to the condition that official respondents will check and see as to whether parties have solemnized marriage in accordance with prevalent laws, and if there is an FIR against any of the petitioner(s), the police may go ahead with the investigation under rules. 5. Disposed of along with connected CM. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 17.11.2025 Sushant