Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/611/2026 of SHAZIA KOSSER AND ANOTHER Vs UT OF J AND K TH INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ZONE JAMMU AND OTHERS on 10 March 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 611/2026 CM No. 1418/2026 01. Shazia Kosser Age 19 years D/O Manzoor Hussain R/O Qila Darhal, Mohra Kampla Tehsil Naushera District Rajouri 02. Sajjad Ahmed Age 23 years S/O Mohd Bashir R/O Panhad, Rajouri District Rajouri
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 611/2026
CM No. 1418/2026
01. Shazia Kosser Age 19 years
D/O Manzoor Hussain
R/O Qila Darhal, Mohra Kampla
Tehsil Naushera District Rajouri
02. Sajjad Ahmed Age 23 years
S/O Mohd Bashir
R/O Panhad, Rajouri
District Rajouri
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rahoof Khan, Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Jamwal, Advocate
vs
01. UT of J&K through
Inspector General of Police
Zone Jammu.
02. Senior Superintendent of Police Rajouri
03. SHO Police Station Naushera
04. SHO Police Station Darhal
05. Manzoor Hussain S/O Noor Hussain
06. Nisar Hussain S/O Noor Mohd
07. Zarina Akhter W/O Manzoor Hussain
08. Zabair Ahmed S/O Manzoor Hussain
All residents of village Lam, Mohra Kampla, Tehsil Qila, Darhal, District Rajouri.
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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
(10.03.2026)
Serial No. 187
01. The Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment at the hands of their relatives, as the Petitioners have contracted marriage against their wishes. The Petitioners, therefore, seek protection and security cover from the official Respondents.
02. Heard and perused the record.
03. Perusal of the record annexed with the Writ Petition reveals that the Petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on 14.01.2026 according to their Personal Law, rites and customs.
04. When two adults, consensually, choose each other as life partners, it is the manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognised, the said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class, honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary, once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.
05. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual, as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty. Thus, it is emphatically clear that life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person. The choice of an individual is an extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice and no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice. If right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.
06. When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal; and they have the right to do so. And, it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.
07. Keeping in view the prayer made, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the official Respondents to provide adequate protection on assessment of threat perception, to the Petitioners and act in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled ‘Lata Singh v. State of U. P., (2006) 5 SCC 475’ and ‘Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 1601’, subject to the condition that the official Respondents will check and see as to whether the parties are major and that the marriage has been solemnized in strict accordance with the prevalent laws, and, if there is an FIR against any of the Petitioner(s), the police concerned may go ahead with the investigation, in accordance with law.
08. Needless to say, that the disposal of the instant Petition does not authenticate the marriage of the Petitioners or their age/majority to enter into marriage, which, however, is otherwise subject to fulfilment of stipulations as envisaged under the prevalent laws.
09. Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with the connected application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE
Jammu 10.03.2026 Amit