Rubina Banoo and Anr v. Ut of J and K Th Principal Secretary Home Deptt and Ors

ORDER

03.07.2026

¶1Petitioners through the medium of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek directions from this Court to command Respondents 1 to 3 to provide them the police protection as they apprehend danger to their lives from the petitioners' relatives private respondent Nos. 4 to

¶9It is submitted that the petitioners are major and out of their free will, they got married. Copy of Marriage Certificate dated 15.06.2026 has been placed on record. It is further submitted that since the petitioners have contracted marriage against the wishes of Respondent Nos. 4 to 9, as such, they are facing harassment at their hands. The petitioners, in support of their date of birth, have placed on record copy of Class 10th Grade Card of the petitioner No. 1 issued by the Jammu & Kashmir Board of School Education, copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No. 1 and copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No. 2.

¶2Learned 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 Sr. No. 10

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.

¶3Any 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.

¶4In this view of the matter, the instant petition is disposed of, at this stage, by directing Respondents 1 to 3 to 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. The petitioner No. 2 has produced a copy of his age proof, which has been taken on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to produce age proof of the petitioner No. 2 (original certificate) before the Registrar Judicial of this Court to verify the authenticity of the said certificate within one week. In case if the needful is not done within the aforesaid period, the protection granted by this Court shall not be extended. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed with regard to the validity of their marriage.

¶5The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected CMs.

(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu:

03.07.2026 Pawan Angotra

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1840/2026 CM No. 4062/2026 Rubina Banoo and another ….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through :- Mr. Aman Bhagotra, Advocate Petitioners present in person V/s UT of J&K and others ….Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Assisting Counsel vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE