Firdousa Akhter & Anr vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 7 July, 2026

    0
    5
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    Firdousa Akhter & Anr vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 7 July, 2026

    Author: Rahul Bharti

    Bench: Rahul Bharti

               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                          AT SRINAGAR
    
                             WP(C) No. 1485/2026
                             CM No.3895/2026
    
    Firdousa Akhter & Anr.
    
    
    
    
                                                      ....Petitioner/Appellant(s)
    
                       Through :- Mr. Younis Ahad, Advocate.
    
                                   V/s
    
    UT of J&K & ors.
    
                                                        ....Respondent(s)
                       Through :- None.
    Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
    
                                      ORDER
    

    07.07.2026

    1. The petitioners, both of whom have attained the age of majority, have

    SPONSORED

    voluntarily entered into a matrimonial alliance of their own free will and

    volition but for that have incurred displeasure of their respective family

    members.

    2. In support of their assertion that the marriage has been solemnized with

    their free and consent, the petitioners have placed on record a copy of

    the Nikah Nama, annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-I. The

    petitioner No. 1 has also produced her School Leaving Certificate issued

    by the Headmaster Government Middle School, Laribal Rakh-i-

    Hakermullah, Zone Soibugh, which establishes her date of birth and

    confirms that she had attained the age of majority at the time of
    2

    solemnization of the marriage. Petitioner No. 2 is also stated to be a

    major.

    3. The petitioners are presently in hiding owing to a genuine apprehension

    of danger to their lives and personal liberty. According to them,

    respondents No. 6 to 9, being aggrieved by their decision to marry

    against the wishes of their families, are likely to subject them to

    harassment, intimidation, or physical harm.

    4. The issue is no longer res integra. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. &

    Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

    held that two consenting adults are entitled to marry a person of their

    choice and that no individual or authority can interfere with such a

    decision. The Court further directed all administrative and police

    authorities across the Country to ensure that major individuals entering

    into inter-caste or inter-religious marriages are not subjected to threats,

    harassment, or violence and that strict legal action be taken against those

    responsible for such unlawful acts.

    5. Article 144 of the Constitution of India mandates that all authorities,

    civil and judicial, shall act in aid of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The law

    declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 is binding upon all

    courts and authorities. Consequently, it is the bounden duty of the police

    and civil administration to ensure that adults who have lawfully chosen

    to marry of their own free will are afforded adequate protection and are

    not subjected to any form of harassment, intimidation, or violence.

    6. In view of the aforesaid facts and the settled legal position, no further

    adjudication on the merits of the controversy is called for.
    3

    7. Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with the connected

    application, is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2-Senior

    Superintendent of Police Budgam, to issue appropriate

    directions/instructions to respondent No. 3-Station House Officer Police

    Station Budgam, respondent No. 4-Station House Officer Police Station

    Khansahib, and respondent No. 5-Division Officer Police Post Soibugh,

    to ensure that the petitioners, namely Firdousa Akhter and Mohammad

    Ashraf Lone, are not subjected to any harassment, intimidation, threats,

    or physical harm at the hands of respondents No. 6 to 9 or any other

    person acting at their behest.

    (Rahul Bharti)
    Judge

    Srinagar
    07.07.2026
    Muzammil. Q



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here