Disposed

Pakeeza Akhter and Another v. Union Territory of J and K Th.D.G.Police (Home) and Others

J&K HC11 Sept 2026WP(C)/2228/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought police protection against family members after contracting a marriage. The court directed respondents to quaere the petitioners' security needs upon approach and expressly stated no opinion was formed on the marriage's validity. Petition disposed at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to look into grievance for adequate security; no opinion on marriage validity expressed.

Pakeeza Akhter and Another Vs Union Territory of J and… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

S. No. 130 Suppl. List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) No. 2228/2026 CM No. 6056/2026

¶4

Pakeeza Akhter and Anr.

¶5

…Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Adv.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

UT of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s)

¶9

Through:

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER

¶12

11.09.2026

¶13

01.The petitioners seek a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to provide

¶14

them the police protection as they apprehend danger to their lives from respondents 4 to 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 4 to

¶15

9, as such, they are facing harassment at his hands.

¶16

02.Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the decision of the

¶17

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.

¶18

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 his/her 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.

¶19

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of, at this stage, by providing that the respondents 1 to 3 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.

¶20

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶21

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 11.09.2026 “ Shamim Dar ”

Pakeeza Akhter and Another v. Union Territory of J and K Th.D.G.Police (Home) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pakeeza Akhter and Another v. Union Territory of J and K Th.D.G.Police (Home) and Others

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