In a significant order, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court's Srinagar bench on Tuesday directed police authorities to provide protection to a young married couple who alleged threats from the woman's family. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani presided over the hearing where both petitioners were present in person.
Background
Ferooza Bano, aged 20, and Mohd Imran Dar, 24, had contracted marriage on May 17 this year under Muslim personal law. They submitted scanned copies of their Aadhaar cards, birth certificates, and the Nikah Nama as proof. The couple alleged that Ferooza's parents were opposed to the union and wanted her to marry someone else. Fearing retaliation, they approached the court seeking protection from harassment and illegal arrest.
Read also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Widow's Appeal in Divorce Case, Cites Death of Husband and Legal Heirs
Represented by advocate Fayaz Ahmad Reshi, the petitioners pleaded that the family might file false police complaints against Dar. The court recorded their statements in person and verified their documents.
Court's Observations
Justice Wani referred to two landmark Supreme Court Judgments - Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) and Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) - which uphold the right of adults to marry according to their choice and entitle them to protection from harassment.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Farooq Bagwan After 12 Years in Pune Serial Blasts Case
However, the court also noted the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Doly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2024), clarifying that protection orders do not imply judicial validation of the marriage under personal law.
"This order shall not be construed as any opinion of this Court regarding the validity of the marriage," Justice Wani cautioned.
Read also:- Supreme Court Directs Builder to Hand Over Mohali Apartment to Bengaluru Buyers After 14-Year Wait
Decision
The court disposed of the petition with clear directions: official respondents (police and administration) must provide protection to the couple as and when required and ensure no unjustified harassment takes place. The private respondents - family members of Ferooza - were directed not to interfere in the couple’s matrimonial life or threaten their liberty.
The order was passed without seeking a counter-affidavit from the official respondents, considering the urgency of the threat perception. The connected miscellaneous application was also closed.
Case Title: Ferooza Bano & Anr. vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others.
Case Number: 2219/2025
