MAHFOZA RASHID AND ANR v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.COMMR/SECTY(HOME) AND OTHERS
WP(C)/112/2026 · 2026-01-30
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 477 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 477 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 61 Supplementary List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 112/2026
Mahfoza Rashid and Anr. ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Zahoor Ahmad, Advocate
V/S UT of J&K and Ors.
….. Respondent(s) Through: -
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
(ORDER) 30.01.2026
01. Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and 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.
02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.
03. 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 Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.
04. 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 any FIR against any of the petitioner(s), the police may go ahead with the investigation under rules.
05.
Disposed of along with connected CM.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE SRINAGAR 30.01.2026
“Mohammad Yasin Dar”
Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document