HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- HCP No. 17/2026 Munish Malpotra …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Meenu Padha, Advocate Vs Romesh Chander & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (23.04.2026) 1. The petitioner bears no legal relation in any manner whatsoever with Miss- Varsha Verma who is daughter of the respondents No. 1 & 2 whereas respondents No. 3 & 4 are her paternal uncles. 2. The respondents No. 1 & 2, the parents of Miss Varsha Verma are residents of Pargwal tehsil Akhnoor whereas the petitioner- Munish Malpotra is a resident of Gurdaspur, Punjab. 3. The petitioner purportedly identifies himself to be a closest friend and prospective life partner of Miss- Varsha Verma. 4. This statement from the petitioner’s end cannot be entertained except for sake of rejection in the sense that this Court cannot for a moment reconcile with fact that a 25 years aged young girl is so helpless in her parental house that she on her own cannot approach the nearest Police Station to report any act of omission or commission on the part of her parents for subjecting her to wrongful confinement and restraint against her wishes, in which eventuality Regular List Serial No. 14 2 the Police Station being approached by her would surely lose not a moment in acting in accordance with law and investigate the matter and deal with the allegation and accusation of wrongful confinement and restraint amounting to offence against the parents as well as uncles of Miss. Varsha Verma. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, said petition is held to be seriously misconceived. 6. In fact, the matter in which the petitioner- Munish Malpotra has come forward with the self-serving statement that he is a friend and going to be a prospective life partner of Miss. Varsha Verma is nothing but scandalizing young girl and, therefore, may be injurious even to her reputation, particularly when she is an educated young girl and, therefore, is well within her right and mind to take a call on safety of her person, even if safety of her person is to be reckoned as exposed to some risk within her parental home. 7. Accordingly, the petition is held to be misconceived and dismissed. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 23.04.2026 Sneha