SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir High Court has directed the police to register a case and investigate a complaint alleging that a married woman contracted a second marriage without obtaining a divorce from her first husband, if a cognisable offence is disclosed.
The court clarified that a protection order granted to a couple cannot prevent the investigating agency from examining allegations of an offence against either of them, observing that such an order cannot be treated as a blanket licence to commit an offence or shield an alleged offender.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary passed the directions while disposing of a petition filed by Mohd Asif Khan, a resident of Mankote in Poonch district, who alleged that his wife had left their matrimonial home and married another man while their marriage was still legally subsisting.
The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Mendhar, to act on his complaint and register an FIR against the woman and the alleged second husband.
According to the petition, Khan, aged 30, had married respondent No. 5, Afsana Anjum Khan, on March 7, 2024. He alleged that she went missing from their matrimonial home on October 27, 2026, and that two days later he learnt that she had allegedly been enticed away and contracted another marriage with respondent No. 4, Rahman Ali, without obtaining a divorce from him.
The petitioner submitted that he had approached the concerned police authorities seeking legal action, but no case had been registered despite his allegation that his wife had contracted another marriage during the subsistence of their marriage.
The court was also informed that Rahman Ali and Afsana Anjum Khan had earlier approached the Srinagar Wing of the High Court through WP(C) No. 2735/2026, seeking protection.
A Coordinate Bench had disposed of that petition on October 31, 2026, directing the official respondents to examine their request for adequate security and ensure that nobody interfered in their married life.
However, the earlier order had specifically clarified that no opinion was being expressed regarding the validity of their marriage.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client would be satisfied if the present petition was disposed of with a direction to the police to register a case and investigate the matter if it was found that his wife had contracted another marriage with respondent No. 4 while her marriage with the petitioner was still subsisting.
The counsel representing the official respondents submitted that they were not opposed to the request.
Examining the matter, Justice Chowdhary clarified that a direction granting protection to a couple did not determine the legal rights of the parties or prevent the police from investigating allegations of criminal offences.
“Passing of a direction, in a protection matter, does not determine the rights of the parties,” the court observed.
It further held that the investigating agency was not barred from examining a complaint against any person seeking protection if the disclosure made by the complainant revealed the commission of an offence.
“Protection order cannot be a blanket licence to commit any offence or to screen the offender,” the judgment stated.
The court also observed that if a married woman contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of her earlier marriage, it constitutes an offence.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the petitioner to lodge a formal complaint with the concerned police station within one week from November 6, 2026.
It directed the police to register a case and proceed in accordance with law if the complaint disclosed any cognisable offence.
The petition was disposed of by the court on November 6, 2026.
Advocate Dr Musavir Mir appeared for the petitioner, while the official respondents were represented by Nazia Fazal, assisting counsel to Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli.
