Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Khusub Begam Alias Khusbu vs Ut Of J And K Th. Senior on 22 May, 2026
Serial No. 229
Suppl. Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
(Through Virtual Mode)
WP(C) 1497/2026 CM (3316/2026)
Khusub Begam Alias Khusbu
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Khajuria, Advocate
Vs.
UT of J and K Th. Senior
Superintendent of Police, Kathua
and Others
...Respondent(s).
Through: Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Advocate vice
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
22.05.2026
1. Ms. Nisha Kangotra, Advocate appears vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Ld.
Sr. AAG and accepts notice in the matter for the respondents 1 and 2.
2. Notice returnable by the next date of hearing subject to taking of
steps for service within a week’s period shall go to private non-
applicants/respondents 3 to 6.
3. Reply/objections in the matter shall be filed positively by the next
date of hearing.
4. The petitioners are present in person. They are major as per the
copies of the certificates placed on the record, inter alia, mentioning their
dates of birth. They also seem to be so.
5. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is married to
one Mustak Ali R/o. Basholi Kathua. That after her marriage with the
said Mustak Ali on 03.02.2024, her relations with her husband did not
remain cordial as her inlaws including her husband started harassing and
torturing her on one or the other pretext including the demand for dowry
and sexual favours etc. That the petitioner No. 1 after being thrown out
of her matrimonial home and while living alone, fell in love with
petitioner No. 2, and both of them have been in a live-in relationship.
That they intend to marry each other after petitioner No. 1 obtains a
divorce from her husband. The petitioners apprehend threat to their life
at the hands of private respondents No. 3 to 6, who have allegedly
extended threats to them. They further apprehend grave threat to their life
and liberty on account of being in a live-in relationship.
6. The petitioners, who are present in person, have admitted the
contents of the petition.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to
the prayer for grant of interim relief. Learned counsel submitted that the
petitioners, being adult citizens of the country, are entitled to the
constitutional guarantees, particularly those enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution of India relating to protection of life and liberty. It
was further submitted that they cannot be denied protection of their life
and liberty merely because they are in a love affair and in a live-in
relationship.
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,
in Mahima vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.
1159/2023, decided on 30.05.2023), and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court in Aarthi vs. State of Punjab (CRWP No. 9343 of 2025
(O&M), decided on 28.08.2025), wherein it has been held that the
fundamental right to life and liberty of individuals in a live-in relationship
deserves protection irrespective of societal acceptance or the absence of
a valid marriage
9. Perused the interim application supported by an affidavit. Also
perused the main petition along with the copies of documents enclosed
with the same as annexures thereto.
10. The Annexure-III appended to the petition is an application
reported to have been made by the petitioners to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Kathua, seeking security/protection, wherein
the same facts have been mentioned as have been averred in the instant
petition. However, it is submitted that no action has been taken on the
said application.
11. List on 03.06.2026.
12. In the meantime, subject to any vacation or modification upon
consideration of reply/objections of the non-applicants/respondents and
till the next date of hearing before the Bench, non-applicants/respondents
No. 1 and 2 are directed to provide protection to the applicants-
petitioners, if they approach for the same, so that no harm is caused to
their life and liberty.
13. It is needless to mention that it is the admitted case of the petitioners
that they are not married to each other. The fact that petitioner No. 1 is
married to one Mustak Ali, with whom she has matrimonial disputes, has
also been admitted in the petition. Therefore, this interim direction shall
not, in any case, be misunderstood as any opinion of this Court regarding
the marriage between the applicants/petitioners.
14. This order shall also be without prejudice to the rights of any
aggrieved person including the private respondents to seek appropriate
remedy in accordance with law.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
22.05.2026
Shahid Manzoor
