KAMRUN NISA v. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS. (HOME)
WP(C)/1460/2025 · 2025-06-19
Mohd Yousuf Wani
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7864 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7864 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Suppl 81
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1460/2025
Kamrun Nisa and anr
…Petitioner(s) Through: Mr Abid Zahoor, 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 19.06.2025
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 4 to provide adequate security to the petitioners who have solemnized marriage contrary to the wishes of respondents 5 and 6 and their relatives. (ii) Commanding the respondents 2 to 4 to ensure that no harassment is caused to the petitioners at the behest of respondents 5 & 6 and their relatives. (iii) Commanding the respondents 5 & 6 and their relatives not to interfere in the marital life of the petitioners who have solemnized marriage as per the Muslim Law, rites and customs out of their free consent.”
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 17th June, 2025 and a 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 who decided to leave her parental home. That they are in deep love with each other and both are of sound mind capable of taking a rational decision. That they apprehend that private respondents 5 & 6 who happen to be brothers 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 statements of the petitioners be 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 school leaving certificates, adhaar cards 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 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 with the following directions: i) The official respondents 2 & 4 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 respondents 5 & 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: 19.06.2025
“Ayaz”