The High Court directed official respondents to provide adequate protection to adult petitioners who contracted a marriage, balancing safety with the right to investigate potential offenses against them.
Direct the official respondents to provide adequate protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sr. No. 181
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 2827/2026 Mamta Devi & Anr.
.....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Munish Malhotra, Advocate Mr. Abid Khan, Advocate
v/s
UT of J & K & Ors.
.....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER 07.09.2026
1. Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage out of their freewill and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment at hands of their relatives, for having contracted marriage against their wishes. Petitioners, therefore, seek protection and security from the official respondents.
2. Heard, perused and considered.
3. Perusal of record annexed with writ petition, prima facie , reveals that petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on 31.08.2026, according to Hindu rites and rituals.
4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U. P. (2006) 5 SCC 475, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors AIR 2018 SC 1601 , the official respondents are directed to provide adequate protection to the life and liberty of the petitioners, however, this shall not prevent the official respondents to carry out the investigation of a case which may be registered against the petitioners in respect of any other incident.
WP (C) No. 2827/2026
2
5. Needless to say, that disposal of instant petition does not authenticate petitioners’ marriage or their age/majority to enter into marriage.
6. Disposed of along with connected CM.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge
JAMMU 07.09.2026 Manan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether official respondents are directed to provide protection to adult petitioners who contracted marriage against their wishes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lata Singh v. State of U. P.Followed¶14
Lata Singh v. State of U. P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Shakti Vahini v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶14
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors AIR 2018 SC 1601 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamta Devi
Union Territory of J&K
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
