Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Yasir Amin And Another vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 17 April, 2026
Sr. No. 162
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No.1025/2026
Yasir Amin and another ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Azmat Ullah Parihar, Advocate
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
17.04.2026
01. Petitioners are present in person too.
02. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought issuance of writs/directions in the
nature of:
(a) “Mandamus for commanding upon the official
respondents 1 to 6 to provide adequate protection to
them, who have solemnized marriage contrary to the
wishes of private respondents 7 & 8 and also of their
other relatives, who are extending open threats to
them..
(b) Mandamus for commanding the official respondents to
ensure that no harassment is caused to them at the
hands of private respondents and their other relatives.
(c) Mandamus commanding the respondents 7 & 8 to allow
the petitioners to lead their matrimonial life peacefully
and without there being any interference of the
respondents.”
(d) Mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.3 to 6 not
to register any FIR against the petitioner NO.1 and his
family members on the basis of complaint of the
respondent Nos.7 & 8 or their relatives.
03. It is the case of the petitioners that they being major have contracted
marriage out of their own free will and choice on 16.04.2026 in accordance with
2 WP(C) 1025/2026
their Personal Law. That they have already performed “Nikah Ceremony” in
accordance with the Personal Law guaranteeing them on 16th April, 2026 and
photocopy of “Nikahnama” evidencing the “Nikah Ceremony’ stands already
executed forming Annexure-II to their petition. That the family of the petitioner
No.2 has always remained against the relationship of the petitioners even prior
to their marriage as a result of which the petitioner No.2 was subjected to great
mental torture and agony. That petitioner No.2 chose to leave the parental home
against the wishes of respondents 7 & 8 to live with the petitioner No.1 being
her husband. That petitioners also apprehend that private respondents may lodge
a false and frivolous complaint before the police concerned to get an FIR
registered against the petitioner No.1.
04. The petitioners have placed on record the scanned copies of their
School Certificates and Aadhaar Cards as also of the alleged “Nikah Nama”.
Perusal of the copies of the School Certificates and Aadhaar Cards reveals that
the Date of Birth of the petitioner No.1-Yasir Amin is 31st March, 2002, whileas
that of petitioner No.2-Shayest Nasreen is 08th December, 1992.
05. The statements of the petitioners have been got recorded by the
learned Registrar Judicial in attestation of their petition.
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 threshold 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 safeguard the life and liberty
3 WP(C) 1025/2026
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 threshold stage
with the following directions:
i) The official respondents 1 to 6 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 7 & 8 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 marriage as per Personal Law guaranteeing the parties.
10. Disposed of along with connected CM.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
JAMMU:
17.04.2026
Shammi