Daizy Rafiq vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Director on 21 April, 2026

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Daizy Rafiq vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Director on 21 April, 2026

                                         S. No. 206
                                         Suppl. list
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                    AT SRINAGAR
                           WP(C)/814/2026
                            CM/2096/2026
  1. DAIZY RAFIQ, AGED: 25 YEARS
     D /O: MOHD RAFIQ SOFI
     R/O: DRAGER, PALA PORA, LITTER,                        Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
     DISTRICT: PULWAMA.
  2. ABRAR AHMAD DAR, AGED: 28 YEARS
     S/O : GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR
     R/O: DANAMAZAR, SAFA KADAL,
     DISTRICT: SRINAGAR

 Through: Mr. Abbas Lodhi, Advocate.
                                        Vs.


 1. Union Territory of J&K through Director                            ...Respondent(s)
    General of Jammu & Kashmir Police,
    Srinagar 190001
 2. Sr. Superintendent of Police District Pulwama.
 3. Sr. Superintendent of Police District Srinagar.
 4. Station House Officer Police Station,
    Lassipora, Pulwama.
 5. Station House Officer Police Station,
    Safakadal, Srinagar
 6. Mohd Rafiq Sofi (Father of Pet. No, 1)
    S/o : Ali Mohammad Sofi
 7. Altaf Ahmad Sofi (Brother of Pet. No. 1)
    S/o: Mohd Rafiq Sofi
    Respondents No: 6-7 Residents of Drager,
    Palapora, Litter, District: Pulwama.
 8. Jahangir Ahmad Wani (Brother in Law of Pet No. 1)
    S/o : Mohd Shafi Wani
    R/O: Zashu, Tahab DISTRICT: Pulwama
 Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.
 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                     ORDER

21.04.2026

1. The Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted

SPONSORED

marriage out of their free will and are living as husband and wife,

but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and

harassment at the hands of their relatives, as the Petitioners have

contracted marriage against their wishes. The Petitioners, therefore,

seek protection and security cover from the official Respondents.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. Perusal of the record annexed with the Writ Petition reveals that the

Petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on 16th of April,

2026, according to the Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs.

4. When two adults, consensually, choose each other as life partners, it

is the manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles

19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has sanction of

constitutional law and once that is recognised, the 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 of

liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of

constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

5. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui

vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual, as the

dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association

with liberty. Thus, it is emphatically clear that life and liberty sans

dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter

into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person. The choice

of an individual is an extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be

thought of where there is erosion of choice and no one shall be

permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice. If right

to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely

difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.

6. When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path;

they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal; and

they have the right to do so. And, it can unequivocally be stated that

they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a

constitutional violation.

7. Keeping in view the prayer made, this Writ Petition is disposed of

with a direction to the official Respondents to provide adequate

protection to the Petitioners and act in accordance with the law laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled ‘Lata Singh v.

State of U. P., (2006) 5 SCC 475′ and ‘Shakti Vahini v. Union of

India & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 1601′, subject to the condition that the

official Respondents will check and see as to whether the parties are

major and that the marriage has been solemnized in strict accordance

with the prevalent laws, and, if there is an FIR against any of the

Petitioner(s), the police concerned may go ahead with the

investigation, in accordance with law.

8. Needless to say, that the disposal of the instant Petition does not

authenticate the marriage of the Petitioners or their age/majority to

enter into marriage, which, however, is otherwise subject to

fulfilment of stipulations as envisaged under the prevalent laws.

9. Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with the

connected CM.

(MA CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
21.04.2026
“Hilal”