SUBEENA AND ANOTHER v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (POLICE / HOME)
WP(C)/1460/2026 · 2026-06-30
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1607 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1607 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 135 Supplementary Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)/1460/2026 SUBEENA AND ANOTHER …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Salfi Izhar, Advocate Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (POLICE / HOME)
...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
ORDER 30.06.2026
1. Petitioners are stated to have solemnized marriage out of their volition against the wishes of their respective families, who are now bent upon to disturb their marital life. Apprehending arrest by the police concerned, at the instance of private respondents, the petitioners have approached this court to seek protection to their life and liberty in application of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in case titled “Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others AIR 2018 SC 1601”.
2. Notice. Notice waived by Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel appearing vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG on behalf of official respondents.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. It appears that petitioner No. 1 had already contracted a marriage prior to entering into the marriage in question and, from the said marriage, has a child. However, it is stated that the said marriage is no longer subsisting, having been dissolved through a valid dissolution.
5. The documents placed on record by the petitioners do disclose that they have attained the age of majority and have entered into wedlock on
13.06.2026.
6. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the judgment supra, as also the averments taken in the memo of petition, the petition is allowed and the official respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ marital life. This order shall not, however, be construed as an acknowledgment of the validity of marriage of the petitioners and any
dispute in respect thereof would be independent of the directions passed herein above.
7. Disposed of.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 30.06.2026
“Adil Ismail”