SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the police to consider providing adequate security to a couple who apprehend danger to their lives following their marriage against the wishes of a family member, making it clear that if they are found to be adults and to have married of their own free will and consent, necessary protection must be extended to them.
Disposing of a writ petition filed by Madiha Firdous and another petitioner, Justice Sindhu Sharma observed that any person who has attained the age of majority is entitled to marry according to their wishes and that the police are duty-bound to protect their life and liberty if approached.
The court, however, noted that the petitioners had not approached the official respondents seeking protection before filing the petition.
“Any person having attained the age of majority is entitled to contract the marriage as per his/her wishes and the police department is duty bound to protect their life and liberty, if approached,” the court observed.
The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking directions to the Union Territory administration and other official respondents to provide them police protection, claiming that they apprehended threats to their lives from respondent No. 6 after marrying against her wishes.
Their counsel, Mohd Arif, submitted that both petitioners were majors and had married of their own free will. He placed on record a document issued by Army Goodwill Public School, Rajouri, under the Central Board of Secondary Education, as proof of the age of petitioner No. 1, Madiha Firdous. A copy of the Nikah Nama, dated September 22, 2026, was also submitted before the court.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475, the petitioners’ counsel argued that, in the absence of any legal impediment, individuals were entitled to marry a person of their choice and that the authorities were under an obligation to safeguard their life and liberty.
Both petitioners appeared personally before the court and were identified by their counsel. After examining the documents placed on record, Justice Sharma observed that they were majors and had contracted marriage on September 22, 2026, in accordance with Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs.
Disposing of the petition at this stage, the court directed respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to examine the couple’s grievance and consider providing them adequate security if they approached the authorities. It also directed the authorities to ensure that nobody interfered in their married life, subject to the outcome of the necessary inquiry.
The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the validity of the marriage and that the police were free to take a decision on the basis of the available material and inquiry.
“If it is found that the parties are major and have married out of their own free will and consent, the necessary protection shall be extended to them,” the order stated.
The order was passed on October 23, 2026, in WP(C) No. 3528/2026, along with the accompanying miscellaneous application, CM No. 7239/2026.
The Union Territory respondents were represented by advocate Nisha Kangotra, appearing on behalf of Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli.
