Anjum Afshan & Ors vs State Of J&K & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1411 j&K/2

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

                                                Reserved on: 25.10.2021
                                              Pronounced on:10.11.2020


              OWP No.83/2019 (WP(C) No.203/2019

ANJUM AFSHAN & ORS.                            ...PETITIONER(S)

            Through: - Mr. S. H. Thakur, Advocate.
Vs.

STATE OF J&K & ORS.                          ...RESPONDENT(S)

            Through: - Mr. Sheikh Feroz, Dy. AG, vice
                       Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG, for R1 to R6.
                       Mr. M. S. Reshi, Advocate-for R7 to R9.


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE


                                JUDGMENT

1) Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition seeking a

direction upon respondents to ensure safety of their life and

honour. A further direction asking the official respondents to

proceed against the private respondents in accordance with law has

also been sought.

2) The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioner No.1

has entered into wedlock with petitioner No.2 out of her free will

and volition against the wishes of her father i.e., respondent No.7.

According to petitioner, respondent No.7, father of the petitioner

No.1, is a person of ill repute who has entered into wedlock four

times and has divorced the mother of petitioner No.1. It is further

averred that the respondent No.7 wanted to give petitioner No.1 in

marriage to an illiterate truck driver and the same was resisted by

petitioner No.1 who is stated to have lodged a complaint with

Women's Commission in this regard. The petitioners are stated to

have approached this Court by way of several writ petitions

including OWP No.1064/2017 and OWP No.546/2016, which are

pending before this Court. It is alleged that private respondents i.e.,

respondents No.6 to 9, invaded the house of the petitioners and

raised a hue and cry over there and in case petitioners are not

protected from the said respondents, they apprehend that they will

be killed.

3) The petition has been resisted by respondents No.7 to 9 by

filing a reply thereto. In their reply, it has been averred that the

petitioner No.1 has managed to enter into a wedlock with petitioner

No.2 by suppressing the fact that there is already a restraint order

passed by learned Sub Judge, Sopore, whereby she has been

restrained from contracting marriage. According to the said

respondents, as per Shariat, consent of father his very important

for marriage of daughter and without the consent of father,

marriage is incomplete. It is further averred that as father, it is

responsibility of respondent No.7 to watch welfare of his daughter.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the

material on record.

5) It is not in dispute that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are major

and it is also not in dispute that they have entered into a wedlock

out of their own will and volition. The question whether learned

Sub Judge, Sopore, was justified in passing an order of restraint on

marriage of petitioner No.1 is left to be decided in appropriate

proceedings. However, one thing is clear that even if petitioner

No.1 has violated the said order, it is not open to respondent No.7

and his associates to harass the petitioners or to intimidate them.

The proper course for them is to approach the concerned court

seeking action for breach of its order. No law or religion gives a

license to a father to harass or intimidate his major daughter just

because she does not accede to wishes of her father to marry a

particular person. It is not open to a father or relatives of a girl to

take law into their own hands. It is the duty of the Court to protect

life and liberty of a major girl who, out of her own volition, wants

to reside separately from her father.

6) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed to the

extent that the respondents No.1 to 6 are directed to ensure that the

petitioners are not harassed at the behest of respondents No.7 to 9

and it is also directed that they shall be given proper security as

and when the official respondents are approached by petitioners in

this regard.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

SRINAGAR 10.11.2021 "Bhat Altaf, PS"

                                              Whether the order is speaking:     Yes/No
                                              Whether the order is reportable:   Yes/No




MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT
2021.11.10 12:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document