Disposed¶18

Iqra Fatima and Anr. v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Orfs

J&K HC2 May 2025WP(C)/970/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ petition; marriage of free will against family opposition; respondents 8 and 9 harassment; Nikahnama and school birth certificate on record; attainment of majority entitles marriage by choice; police duty bound to protect life and liberty if approached; petitioners had not approached authorities; disposed with conditional security/non-interference direction; no opinion on marriage validity; counsel invoked Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (5) SCC 475; High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar; Wasim Sadiq Nargal; 02.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the official respondents shall look into the petitioners' grievance for providing them adequate security and ensure that nobody interferes in their married life, if the petitioners approach them. ¶18

Iqra Fatima and Anr. Vs Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Orfs — J&K HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the official respondents are obliged to provide police protection to the petitioners, who state they contracted marriage of their own free will against the wishes of respondents 8 and 9 and apprehend danger to their lives. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Any person who has attained the age of majority is entitled to contract marriage as per his/her wishes, and the police department is duty bound to protect such person's life and liberty if approached.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

On the material before it, the Court observed that the petitioners had not ever approached the official respondents for their indulgence in the matter of providing protection.

¶16

Key takeaways

Petition disposed of at this stage with a direction that the official respondents shall look into the petitioners' grievance for providing them adequate security and ensure that nobody interferes in their married life, if the petitioners approach them.ratio¶17
Expressly left open: the Court made clear that no opinion was expressed with regard to the validity of the petitioners' marriage.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C) 970/2025) filed by a couple, Iqra Fatima and another, who submitted that they contracted marriage out of their own free will (Nikahnama and petitioner no. 1's school birth certificate on record) against the wishes of private respondents 8 and 9, and sought a direction for police protection apprehending danger to their lives. Learned counsel invoked Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and anr., 2006 (5) SCC 475. The Court held that any person who has attained the age of majority is entitled to contract marriage as per his/her wishes and that the police department is duty bound to protect life and liberty if approached, while observing that the petitioners had not ever approached the official respondents. The petition was disposed of at this stage with a direction that the official respondents shall look into the grievance of the petitioners for providing adequate security and ensure that nobody interferes in their married life, if they approach them. The Court expressly made clear that no opinion was expressed on the validity of the marriage.

¶1

S. No. 230 Supp. Cause List

¶2

IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) 970/2025 CM(2542/2025)

¶4

IQRA FATIMA AND ANR.

¶5

…Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Zaffar Iqbal, Adv.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ORS.

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. Illyas Laway, GA

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

¶13

ORDER 02.05.2025

¶14

The petitioners seek a direction to official respondents to provide them the police protection as they apprehend danger to their lives from respondents 8 and 9. It is submitted that the petitioners are major and out of their free will they got married. Copy of Nikahnama has been placed on record. They submit that since they have contracted the marriage against the wishes of respondents 8 and 9, as such, they are facing harassment at their hands. Petitioner no. 1 in support of her date of birth has placed on record Birth certificate issued by the school authorities.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and anr., 2006 (5) SCC 475 , and submits that in absence of there being any legal impediment, the petitioners are entitled to marry according to their choice and the official respondents are duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶16

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 the life and liberty, if approached. However, it appears that the petitioners have not ever approached the official respondents for their indulgence in the matter for providing protection to them.

¶17

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of, at this stage, by providing that the official respondents shall look into the grievance of the petitioners for providing them adequate security and to ensure that nobody interferes in their married life, if they approach them. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed with regard to the validity of their marriage.

¶18

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶19

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE

¶20

SRINAGAR 02.05.2025 Sakeena

Iqra Fatima and Anr. v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Orfs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqra Fatima and Anr. v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Orfs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dawood Ibrahim Vs Union Territory of J and K and Anr. (Home Department)

Zahoor Ahmad Bhat Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Home Department)

Ishfaq Ahmad Malla Vs Union Territory of J and K and Another. (Home Department)

Aisha Tariq Vs Union of India and Ors. (Home Affairs)

M/S Shah Electricals Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Public Works)

Mir Mohammad Majid and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (School Education)