Allowed

Muthira Altaf and Anr. v. Union Territory through Director General of Police and Ors. (Home Department)

J&K HC12 Feb 2021WP(C)/210/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of J&K directed respondents to provide adequate security cover to petitioners who are majors having contracted marriage, relying on Lata Singh, while reserving opinion on marriage validity.

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents to provide adequate security cover to the petitioners in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Muthira Altaf and Anr. Vs Union Territory through… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Item No. 106 Suppl. List-1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) No.210/2021 CM No.798/2021

¶4

Muthira Altaf & anr. …Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. A. G. Mansoor, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Union Territory of J&K & Ors. …Respondent(s)

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶10

ORDER(ORAL) 12.02.2021

¶11

Through the medium of instant petition, the

¶12

petitioners seek a direction upon official respondents to provide them adequate protection as they apprehend danger to their lives from the private respondents. It is contended in the petition that the petitioners are major and that they have entered into wedlock out of their free and volition. In support of their contention, the petitioners have placed on record copies of Nikah Nama, marriage agreement, affidavit of petitioner No.1, copy of the certificate issued by J&K State Board of School Education showing the date of petitioner No.1 as

¶13

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.15 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

2 WP(C) No.211/2021 CM No.799/2021

¶15

27.12.2000, copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner No.1 and copy of birth certificate of petitioner no.2.

¶16

It is contended in the petition that because the petitioners have contracted marriage against the wishes of private respondent No.1, as such, they are facing harassment at hands of relatives of petitioner No.1.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and anr . 2006 (5) SCC 475 , submitted that in absence of there being any legal impediment, the petitioners are entitled to enter into wedlock as per their choice and the official respondents are duty bound to protect their life and liberty.

¶18

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

¶19

Perusal of the record annexed with the writ petition reveals that the petitioners are major and they have contracted marriage according to Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs. Any person having attained the age of majority is entitled to contract the marriage as per his/her wishes and the police is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of such persons.

¶20

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.15 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

WP(C) No.211/2021 CM No.799/2021

¶22

Keeping in view the relief sought, this writ petition is disposed of, at this, with a direction to the official respondents to provide adequate security cover to the petitioners in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U. P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 , if and when petitioners approach them.

¶23

It is made clear that no opinion is being been expressed with regard to the authenticity of age proof of the petitioners, particularly that of petitioner No.1 as also with regard to the validity of their marriage. The official respondents are free to take a view on the basis of the available material and thereafter proceed in accordance with the law.

¶24

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

¶25

Srinagar 12.02.2021 “Bhat Altaf, PS”

¶26

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶27

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.15 14:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Muthira Altaf and Anr. v. Union Territory through Director General of Police and Ors. (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthira Altaf and Anr. v. Union Territory through Director General of Police and Ors. (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bilal Ahmed Deva Vs Commissioner Secretary and Ors. (Revenue Department)

Ghulam Mohammad Reshi Vs J and K Special Tribunal and Ors.

Zaffar Ahmad Wani Vs Vinod Kaul (Comm/Sectt. Revenue Deptt.)

Bilal Ahmad Dar and Anr. Vs Union Territory Director General of Police and Ors. (Home Department)

Abdul Majid Rah and Another Vs State Govt of J and K Others.

Dr. Mohamad Jaffar Akhoon Vs State of Jk and Others. (Health Deptt)