Disposed

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

J&K HC7 Nov 2022WP(C)/2390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by a single judge who found the petitioner adults entitled to solemnize marriage. Apprehension of threats by respondent brothers was addressed by directing the petitioners to approach SHO for redressal rather than retaining the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without retaining stay; petitioners directed to approach SHO if threats to life and liberty occur.

Rukhsana and Anr. Vs Union Territory through Director… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2022)

¶1

S. No. 72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) No. 2390/2022 CM No. 6016/2022

¶4

Rukhsana and Anr.

¶5

…Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr Abid Zahoor, Advocate with Petitioners present in person.

Vs.

UT of J&K and Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Through: Mr Irfan Andleeb, Dy.AG with Dr. Anjum, incharge CMO Srinagar. Dr. Malik Nazir, Dentral Surgeon, CMO office and Dr. Zafar Iqbal, Medical Officer, CMO office.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

07.11.2022

¶15

In compliance to order dated 31.10.2022 Dr. Anjum, incharge CMO Srinagar, Dr. Malik Nazir, Dental Surgeon, CMO Office and Dr. Zafar Iqbal, Medical Officer, CMO Office are present.

¶16

Mr Malik Nazir, Dental Surgeon, submits that age of the petitionerRukhsana has been mentioned on the basis of the dental age and reference with regard to the Aadhar card details has been made only insofar as particulars are concerned. The presence of above mentioned officers is dispensed with.

¶17

The petitioners have solemnized Nikah Nimah on 06.10.2022 according to Islamic Rights and Customs and later on agreement dated 11.10.2022 too has been executed by the petitioners. The petitioners are major and they are well within their right to solemnize marriage as per their choice. The petitioners apprehend threat at the hands of the respondents 5 to 7 who happen to be the brothers of the petitioner no. 1. No fruitful purpose shall be served by retaining this petition on board, as such, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners that in case they apprehend

¶18

any threat to the life and liberty at the hands of the respondents 5 to 7, they shall be at liberty to approach SHO concerned for redressal of their grievances and in the event the grievances of the petitioners are found genuine, the SHO concerned shall proceed in accordance with law and ensure that there is no threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of the respondents 5 to 7.

¶19

Disposed of.

¶20

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

¶21

SRINAGAR 07.11.2022

¶22

“Ishaq”

Rukhsana 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?

Rukhsana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soom Dutt Vs Simrandeep Singh and Anr.

Kalu Ram and Anr. Vs Kala and Ors.

Shahida Parveen Vs Zahida Khan,Dir.School Education,Jammu.

Mohammad Abdullah Bhat Vs Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Ors.

Misra Bano Alias Masrat Begaum Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

Zubair Ahmad Sheikh Vs Ut of J and K and Anr. (Home)