Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7780 (JK)

SABREENA AKHTER AND ANR. v. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS. (HOME)

WP(C)/1392/2025 · 2025-06-17

Mohd Yousuf Wani

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SUPPLEMENTARY 75 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1392/2025 Sabreena Akther and anr …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, adv. VS. Union Territory of J&K and Others. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Wasim Gul, DAG CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, Judge. ORDER 17.06.2025 01. Petitioners are also present in person. 02. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of writs/directions in the nature of: (i) “Mandamus, commanding the official respondents 2 to 5 to provide adequate security cover to the petitioners who have solemnized marriage contrary to the wishes of respondent No. 6 and their relatives who are extending open life threats to the petitioners. (ii) Commanding the respondents 2 to 5 to ensure that no harassment be caused to the petitioners at the behest of respondent No. 6 and their relatives. (iii) Commanding the respondent No. 6 and their relatives not to interfere in the marital life of the petitioners who have solemnized the marriage as per the Muslim Law, rites and customs with their free consent and desire and without any pressure, threat or coercion from any quarter.” 03. It is the case of the petitioners that they being major have contracted marriage out of their own free will and choice in accordance with their Personal Law. That they have already performed “Nikah Ceremony” in accordance with the Personal Law guaranteeing them on 1st June, 2025 and photocopy of “Nikah Nama” evidencing the “Nikah Ceremony’ stands enclosed with the petition. That the family of the petitioner No.1 has always remained against the relationship of the petitioners even prior to their marriage as a result of which the petitioner No.1 was subjected to great mental torture and agony. That the petitioners apprehend that private respondent No. 6 who happens to be father of the petitioner No.1, may lodge a false and frivolous complaint before the police concerned to get an FIR registered against the petitioner No.2. 04. The statement of the petitioner No. 1 was got recorded by the Registrar Judicial of this Court in attestation of the petition. 05. The petitioners appear to be major as per the copies of documents i.e birth certificate, adhaar card and driving license enclosed with the petition. 06. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners being major have contracted marriage out of their own free will and choice, as such the instant writ petition be disposed of at this thresh-hold stage in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case “Lata Singh vs. State of UP and ors (2006) 5 SCC 475”;and “Arumugam Servia v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405” decided on 19th April 2011, by passing the appropriate directions upon the respondents to safe guard the life and liberty of the petitioners, to prevent any sort of undue harassment to them, and also interference with their matrimonial life. 07. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the instant matter can be disposed of at this threshold stage by passing appropriate orders in accordance with the law. 08. Accordingly the instant petition is disposed of at this thresh hold stage with the following directions: i) The official respondents 2 & 5 shall ensure that no unjustified harassment is being caused to the petitioners and they shall be provided protection as and when asked for the same; ii) The respondent No. 6 shall also desist from causing any illegal and unjustified harassment to the petitioners, so that their right to life and personal liberty is not interfered with. 09. However, in view of the ratio decidendi of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Doly Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal [ 2024 Live Law (SC) 334 =2024 SCC Online SC 754] decided on 19.04.2024, this order shall not be construed as any opinion of this Court regarding the validity of marriage as per Personal Law guaranteeing the parties. 10. Disposed of along with connected CM. (Mohd. Yousuf Wani) Judge srinagar: 17.06.2025 “Ayaz”