Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2026 DAILYLAW 339 (JK)

IDREES AHMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH. COMMR/SECTY TO HOME AND OTHERS

WP(C)/241/2026 · 2026-02-11

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 110 Supp Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)/241/2026 CM/592/2026 IDREES AHMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Abbas Lodhi, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH. COMMR/SECTY TO HOME AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. ORDER 11.02.2026 1. Petitioners are stated to have solemnized marriage out of their volition against the wishes of respondent No. 5, Manzoor Ahmad Pir, father of the petitioner No. 2, who is now bent upon to disturb their marital life. Apprehending arrest by the police concerned, at the instance of respondent No. 2, 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, learned counsel on behalf of respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Petitioner No. 1, who is present in person, states that he is already married with one Suraya Hamid, W/O petitioner No.1, R/O Kralpora, District Kupwara and he has entered into a second wedlock with the consent of his first wife. 5. The documents placed on record by the petitioner do disclose that they have attained the age of majority and have entered into a wedlock on 31.01.2026. 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, as well as the respondent No.5, 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: 11.02.2026 “Misba”