Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Nusrat Rasool And Anr vs Union Territory Of J And K (Home) And on 25 June, 2025
S.No. 21
Suppl. list
HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1489/2025
CM 3815/2025
NUSRAT RASOOL AND ANR ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Ms. Iyenain Tasaduq, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ...Respondent(s)
ORS
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
ORDER
25.06.2025
1. Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage out of their
freewill and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be
subjected to physical violence and harassment at hands of their relatives, as
petitioners have contracted marriage against their wishes. Petitioners,
therefore, seek protection and security cover from respondents.
2. Heard and perused the file.
3. Perusal of record annexed with writ petition reveals that petitioners are major
and have contracted marriage on 28.04.2025, according to Muslim Personal
Law, rites and customs.
4. When two adults, consensually, choose each other as life partners, it is
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, 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.
5. 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 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.
6. 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.
7. Keeping in view the prayer made, writ petition is disposed of with a direction
to official respondents to provide adequate protection to petitioners and act in
accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 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 official respondents will
check and see as to whether parties are major and the marriage has been
solemnized in strict accordance with prevalent laws, and, if there is an FIR
against any of the petitioner(s), the police may go ahead with the investigation
under rules.
8. Needless to say, that disposal of instant petition does not authenticate
petitioners’ marriage or their age/majority to enter into marriage, which,
however, is otherwise subject to fulfilment of stipulations as envisaged under
prevalent laws.
9. Disposed of along with connected CM.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
25.06.2025
Hilal Ahmad