Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Nahida Akther And Anr vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 May, 2026
S-121
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) 1263/2026
Nahida Akther and anr ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Masood Ahmad, adv.
VS.
Union Territory of J&K and Others. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, Judge.
ORDER
05.05.26
01.Petitioners are also present in person.
02.Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of writs/directions
in the nature of:
(i) “Mandamus for commanding upon the official
respondents 1 to 3 to provide them the necessary
protection as they are apprehending threat to their
lives at the hands of private respondents 4 to 10 for
contracting marriage out of their own free will and
choice;
(ii) Prohibition for restraining official respondents 1 to
3 to make unnecessary arrest of the petitioner No.2
being the husband of the petitioner No.1 and for
restraining all the respondents from interfering into
their matrimonial life.”
03. It is the case of the petitioners that they being major have
contracted marriage out of their own free will and choice in
accordance with Personal Law. That they have already performed
“Nikah Ceremony” in accordance with the Personal Law
guaranteeing them on 17th of January, 2025. That a photocopy of
Nikha Nama is executed forming an annexure to their petition.
That the family of the petitioner No.1 has always remained
against the relationship of the petitioners and even threatening
them of dire consequences. That the private respondents 4 to 10,
who happen to be close relatives of petitioner No.1, are forcing
her to enter into marriage somewhere else against her wishes.
That the petitioners also apprehend that the aforesaid private
respondents may lodge a false and frivolous complaint before the
police concerned to get an FIR registered against the petitioner
No.2.
04. The petitioners who are present in person and whose
identification was checked, corroborated the contents of their
petition. Their statements were got recorded by the Ld. Registrar
Judicial of this court in attestation of this petition
05.The petitioners have placed on record the scanned copies of,
date of birth certificates, Adhaar Cards as also of the alleged
“Nikah Nama”. Perusal of the copies of the birth certificates
reveals the Date of Birth of the petitioner No.1, Nahida Akther,
as 108th Sept. 1998, while as that of petitioner No.2, Sharaz
Ahmad Nag, as 20th March 1992.
06. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
since the petitioners being major have contracted marriage out of
their own free will and choice, as such the instant writ petition be
disposed of at this thresh-hold stage in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case “Lata Singh vs.
State of UP and ors (2006) 5 SCC 475″;and “Arumugam Servia v.
State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405” decided on 19th April
2011, by passing the appropriate directions upon the respondents
to safe guard the life and liberty of the petitioners, to prevent any
sort of undue harassment to them, and also interference with their
matrimonial life.
07. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the
opinion that the instant matter can be disposed of at this threshold
stage by passing of appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
08. Accordingly the instant petition is disposed of at this thresh
hold stage with the following directions:
i) The official respondents 1 to 3 shall ensure that no
unjustified harassment is being caused to the petitioners
and they shall be provided the protection as and when
asked for the same;
ii) The respondents 4 to 10 shall also desist from causing
any illegal and unjustified harassment to the petitioners,
so that their right to life and personal liberty is not
interfered with.
,
09. However, in view of the ratio decidendi of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Doly Rani vs. Manish
Kumar Chanchal [ 2024 Live Law (SC) 334 =2024 SCC Online SC
754] decided on 19.04.2024, this order shall not be construed as any
opinion of this Court regarding the validity of alleged marriage.
10.Disposed of along with connected CM.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
JAMMU
05.05.2026
“Ayaz”
