Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HCP/148/2025 of SALEEMA BEGUM AND ANOTHER Vs UT OF J ANDK TH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS on 12 May 2026
of 3 HCP No. 148/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 148/2025 CM No. 6637/2025 Saleema Begum & Anr. …..Petitioners Through: None Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA for R-1 to 5 CORAM: HON’BLE MR.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 148/2025
CM No. 6637/2025
Saleema Begum & Anr.
…..Petitioners
Through: None
Vs
UT of J&K & Ors.
.….Respondents
Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA for R-1 to 5
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, 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
(12.05.2026)
01. Nemo for the petitioners.
02. The petitioner No. 1-Saleema Begum claims to be wife of one Hussan Din son of Imam Hussain resident of village Taraf Tujal, Ward No. 12, Kathua.
03. The petitioner No. 1 joined by the petitioner No. 2-Saif Ali, who is said to be her brother-in-law (the brother of the petitioner’s husband) came forward with the present petition instituted on 14.10.2025 alleging that Hussan Din, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 has gone missing w.e.f. 07.09.2025 leaving behind the petitioner No. 1 and his three children not to be traced despite all searches made by her leading to the lodging of his Serial No. 04 Regular List missing report with Police Station, Kathua on 08.09.2025 but the same did not get register whereas Police from the Police Station, Lakhanpur on 20.09.2025 had come forward enquiring for said Hussan Din, the husband of the petitioner No. 1. The purpose of visit of Police from the Police Station, Lakhanpur was that one Suraj Din had made a complaint that his wife Reshma and the Hussan Din, the husband of the petitioner No. 1 had eloped.
04. The petitioner No. 1 is said to have made a formal written report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua for the purpose of getting the FIR registered.
05. The purpose of the writ petition is for a writ of habeas corpus for searching of the petitioner No. 1’s husband- Hussan Din.
06. The official respondents No. 1 to 5 have come forward with their response to the writ petition denying the narrative as set out in the writ petition by the petitioners. The official respondents No. 1 to 5 have come forward stating that the petitioners, at no point of time, ever came up with any such report of situation that Hussan Din has gone missing. The version of the respondents No. 1 to 5 is that it is only through the medium of the writ petition that they are being confronted with the situation about the missing of Hussan Din.
07. This Court does not see any purpose in keeping this writ petition on the docket any further and disposes of this writ petition with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua to ensure that the Police Station concerned carries out a thorough enquiry about the veracity of the complaint made by the petitioner No. 1 about her missing husband and also to undertake search about the whereabouts of Hussan Din.
08. If the Police would come to a conclusion that the petitioner No. 1 has resorted to a falsehood in connivance with her husband-Hussan Din then a proper legal course of action be resorted to against the petitioner No. 1. In case, the complaint of the petitioner No. 1 is found to be genuine, then every effort be made to trace Hussan Din for giving closure to the case.
09. The petition is accordingly, disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU
12.05.2026
SUNIL