Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sheraza Akhter (Age 21 Years) vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir … on 21 April, 2026
S. No. 208
Suppl. list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C)/814/2026
CM/2096/2026
1. Sheraza Akhter (Age 21 years)
W /O: Waseem Ahmad Khan,
D/O: Manzoor Ahmad Khan, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
R/O: Songlan, Chittergul, Shangus
District Anantnag
At Present Andoora Shangus, Anantnag
2. Waseem Ahmad Khan (Age 29 years)
S/ O: Mohammad Lateef Khan,
R/O: Andoora, Shangus,
District Anantnag
Through: Ms. Azra Bhat, Advocate.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through ...Respondent(s)
Commissioner/ Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/]ammu
2. Director General of Police,
Srinagar/]ammu
3. Inspector General of Police,
Kashmir Division Srinagar
4. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Anantnag
5. Station House Officer,
Police Station Uttersoo, Shangus
District Anantnag
6. Manzoor Ahmad Khan
(Father of Petitioner No. 1)
S/O Sher Khan
7. Mukhtar Ahmad Khan
(Brother of Petitioner No. 1)
S/O Manzoor Ahmad Khan
8. Mohabbat Ali,
(Maternal Uncle of Petitioner No. 1)
S/O: Shareef Khan
9. Altaf Khan
(Cousin of Petitioner No. 1)
S/O: Ghulam Khan
Residents of Chittergul Shangus.
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
21.04.2026
10. The Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted 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.
11. Heard and perused the record.
12. Perusal of the record annexed with the Writ Petition reveals that the
Petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on 10th of April,
2026, according to the Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with the
connected CM.
;
(MA CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
21.04.2026
“Hilal”