Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2179/2026 of NASREENA AKHTER AND ANOTHER Vs UT OF J AND K TH. SECRETARY HOME, JAMMU AND OTHERS on 27 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2179/2026 Nasreena Akhter and Anr. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Waqar Hussain Shah, Advocate. vs UT of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate. Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate. Coram:
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2179/2026
Nasreena Akhter and Anr.
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Waqar Hussain Shah, Advocate.
vs
UT of J&K & Ors.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate.
Mr. Achal Sharma, Advocate.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
27.07.2026
1. Petitioner No. 1 was present before the Court on 22.07.2026 and had stated before this Court that Nikahnama produced by respondent No. 5 (the father of petitioner No.1) did not bear her signatures. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 submitted an affidavit dated 23.07.2026 stating therein that she had neither executed nor signed the Nikahnama at any point of time. Confronted with this situation, this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot determine the authenticity of Nikahnama relied upon by respondent No. 7 to assert that petitioner No. 1 had solemnized her marriage with him. Rather in the present petition, this is a categoric stand of the petitioner No. 1 that she has solemnized the marriage with petitioner No. 2. The status of petitioner No. 1 being major has not at all been disputed by the private respondents. Serial No. 151
2 WP(C) No. 2179/2026
2. In view of the above, as disputed questions of fact having raised by respondent No. 7 with regard to solemnization of marriage of petitioner No. 1 with petitioner No. 2, no finding can be returned qua the Nikahnama relied upon by respondent No. 7 as the execution of the same has been denied by petitioner No. 1 but equally true is that respondent No.7 cannot be left without any remedy.
3. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the official respondents to provide protection to the petitioners, in the event, the SHO Police Station, Chassana arrives at the conclusion that there is a genuine threat to the lives of the petitioners. This order shall not be considered as stamp of approval of the marriage of the petitioners. Respondent No. 7 is left free to avail appropriate remedy as available under law and it is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way of investigation of any FIR. It is also directed that petitioner No. 1 shall be allowed to leave Nari Niketan, Channi Himmat, Jammu.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu 27.07.2026 Neha-1
Neha Kumari 2026.07.27 18:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document