Disposed

Mohammad Saleem Naikoo and Another v. Union Territory of J and K and Others (Police / Home)

J&K HC15 Sept 2026WP(C)/2297/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought police protection after marrying against family wishes. Court noted lack of prior approach to authorities for protection and disposed of petition without expressing opinion on marriage validity.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to look into grievance for adequate security if petitioners approach them; no opinion on marriage validity.

Mohammad Saleem Naikoo and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

S.No.135 Supp. Cause List

¶2

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

¶3

WP(C)/2297/2026 CM/6253/2026

¶4

MOHAMMAD SALEEM NAIKOO AND

¶5

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).

¶6

ANOTHER

¶7

Through: Ms. Uzma Amin, Advocate

¶8

Vs.

¶9

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (POLICE / HOME) Through:

¶10

...Respondent(s).

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER

¶12

15.09.2026

¶13

The petitioners seek a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide them the police protection as they apprehend danger to their lives from respondents 3 to 12. 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 the respondents 3 to 12, as such, they are facing harassment at their hands.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of, at this stage, by directing that the respondents 1 and 2 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.

¶17

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶18

(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE

¶19

SRINAGAR: 15-09-2026 Mubashir

Mohammad Saleem Naikoo and Another v. Union Territory of J and K and Others (Police / Home)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Saleem Naikoo and Another v. Union Territory of J and K and Others (Police / Home)

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