Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Riyaz Ahmad Ganaie & Anr vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 6 August, 2025
Sr. no. 145
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) 1864/2025
Riyaz Ahmad Ganaie & Anr. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Advocate.
VS.
Union Territory of J&K and Others. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, adv
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, Judge.
ORDER
06.08.2025
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 4 to provide them the necessary
protection as they are apprehending threat to their
lives at the hands of private respondents 5 to 7 for
contracting marriage out of their own free will and
choice;
(ii) Prohibition for restraining official respondents 1 to
4 to make unnecessary arrest of the petitioner No.1
being the husband of the petitioner No.2 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
solemnized marriage out of their own free will and choice in
accordance with the Muslim Personal Law guaranteeing them on
14th June, 2025. That they have placed on record photocopy of
“Nikah Nama” forming annexure-I to their petition. That there is
nobody in the family to take care of the first wife of the
petitioner No. 1. That the petitioner No.1 being a government
servant has also long earlier applied for the permission from the
department for contracting the 2nd marriage on the basis of the
worst health condition of his first wife who is suffering from life
consuming disease (Huntington). That respondent no. 9 who is
father of petitioner No.2 with the connivance of police authorities
threatened her and wanted to get her married somewhere else
without her consent. 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.1.
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
their Adhaar Cards, as also of the alleged “Nikah Nama”. Perusal
of the copies of the adhaars reveal that the Date of Birth of the
petitioner No.1 Riyaz Ahmad Ganaie is 01.11.1988, while as that
of petitioner No.2 Shira Farooq is 06.06.1998.
06.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
since the petitioners being major have contracted second 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 8 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 private respondent 9 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
SRINAGAR:
06.08.2025
“Ayaz”