Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ishrata Bano And Anr vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 7 March, 2025
Serial No. 100
Suppl. List.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 471/2025
CM(1117/2025)
Ishrata Bano and Anr. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Bhat Khursheed, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Others. ...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, Judge.
ORDER
07.03.2025
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 seek issuance of writs/directions in the
nature of:-
(i) Mandamus, commanding the official respondents to
ensure full protection cover to the petitioners, so that their
right to life and liberty is not curtailed by any person,
whosoever, as envisaged under law and the respondents be
further directed not to cause any sort of harassment to the
married life of the petitioners in pursuance of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in writ petition (Crl)
No. 208 of 2004 titled Lata Singh vs State of U.P; and
(ii) A Writ in the Nature of Prohibition, prohibiting the official
respondents from causing any arrest of petitioners
particularly petitioner No. 2 who is husband of thepetitioner No. 1.
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 their Personal
Law. That they got introduced to each other some years back, developed deep
mutual affection and love where upon they decided to marry with each other. That
they have already performed “Nikah Ceremony” in accordance with the Personal
Law guaranteeing them on 27th February, 2025 and “Nikah Nama” evidencing the
“Nikah Ceremony’ stands already executed forming annexure-I to their petition.
That the family of the petitioner No.1 has always remained against the relationship
of the petitioners even prior to their marriage as a result of which the petitioner
No.1 was subjected to great mental torture and agony. That petitioner No.1 chose
to leave the parental home against the wishes of respondents 5 to 8 to live with the
petitioner No.2 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.2.
04. The petitioners have placed on record the scanned copies of their Date
of Birth Certificates as also of the alleged “Nikah Nama”. Perusal of the copies of
the Date of Birth Certificates reveals that the Date of Birth of the petitioner No.1
Ishrata Bano is 6th October, 1997, while as that of petitioner No.2 is 6th April,
1995. As per copy of the alleged “Nikah Nama”, the same appears to have been
executed on 27th February, 2025
05. 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.
06. Accordingly the instant petition is admitted to hearing and upon
hearing the petitioners as also their learned counsel is disposed of at this thresh
hold stage with the following directions:
i) The official respondents 1 to 4 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 5 to 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.
07. 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.
08. It is also made clear that FIR, if any, having been registered in respect
of the incident against the petitioner No.2, the investigation in the same shall be
carried to its logical conclusion strictly under law pursuant to the statement of
petitioner No.1, which shall, as such necessarily be recorded without any delay.
09. Disposed of along with connected CM.
(Mohd. Yousuf Wani)
Judge
SRINAGAR:
07.03.2025
“HAMID”