Vishali Devi vs U.T Of J&K Through on 1 April, 2026

    0
    33
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court

    Vishali Devi vs U.T Of J&K Through on 1 April, 2026

                                                                 Serial No. 125
    
    HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                 AT JAMMU
    WP(C ) No. 762/2026
    CM No. 1715/2026
    01.   Vishali Devi, Age 25 years
          D/O Ashok Kumar
          W/O Pankaj
          R/O Chak Malal,
          PO: Khour, District Jammu.
          At present House No. 39, Ward No. 4,
          Harijan Basti, Tehsil Haveli,
          District Poonch.
    
    02.   Pankaj, Age 24 years
          S/O Chandan
          R/O House No. 39, Ward No. 4,
          Harijan Basti, Tehsil Haveli,
          District Poonch.                        .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
    
    
    
                      Through: Mr. Nitesh Sharma, Adv. Vice
                               Mr. Anuj Malhotra, Adv.
    
                              VS
    01.   U.T of J&K through
          Principal Secretary (Home),
          Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
    
    02.   The Senior Superintendent of Police,
          District Jammu.
    
    03.   Station House Officer,
          Police Station Khour, District Jammu.
    
    04.   Ashok Kumar S/O Khakhru Ram
    
    05.   Raj Kumari W/O Ashok Kumar
    
    06.   Sumit Kumar S/O Ashok Kumar
          Residents of Village Chak Malal,
          PO: Khour, District Jammu
    
                                                        ..... Respondent(s)
                      Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
                                         2
    
    
    
    
    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
                                       ORDER
    

    (01.04.2026)

    01. 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.

    02. Heard and perused the record.

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

    the Petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on

    17.03.2026, according to their Personal Law, rites and customs.

    04. 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.
    3

    05. 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.

    06. 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.

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

    with a direction to the official Respondents to provide adequate

    protection on assessment of threat perception, 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
    4

    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.

    08. 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.

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

    the connected application(s).

    (M A CHOWDHARY)
    JUDGE

    Jammu
    01.04.2026.

    Renu

    Renu Bala
    2026.04.01 14:45
    I attest to the accuracy and
    integrity of this document



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here