Srinagar, Oct 31: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed police to provide adequate security to a couple who apprehended physical violence and harassment from their relatives for marrying against their wishes.

Allowing their plea for protection, Justice Shahzad Azeem, in an order dated October 23, directed the authorities to ensure adequate security for the petitioners in accordance with the Supreme Court judgments in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018).
The court, however, made the protection subject to verification that both petitioners were adults and their marriage had been solemnised in accordance with the applicable laws. It clarified that if any FIR had been registered against either petitioner, the police were free to proceed with the investigation as per law.
The petition was filed by Jaswinder Kour and another through advocate Harsh Dubey. They submitted that they had married of their own free will and were living together as husband and wife but feared violence and harassment from relatives opposed to their relationship.
Examining the documents, the court noted that the first petitioner was born on March 26, 1998, and the second on October 10, 1992. Their Aadhaar cards and Class 10 marks certificates showed that they were 28 and 34 years old, respectively. The couple had solemnised their marriage on March 8, 2024, according to Hindu rituals and traditions.
Emphasising the constitutional right of adults to choose their life partners, Justice Azeem observed that such a decision was protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The court held that family, community or clan approval was not necessary when two consenting adults decided to marry, and their choice could not be subordinated to notions of family or community honour.
It observed that individual choice was inseparable from dignity and that any interference with an adult's freedom to choose a life partner would undermine constitutional guarantees.
The court further stressed that constitutional courts had a responsibility to protect individual liberty and ensure that a person's right to live with dignity was not compromised by interference from others.
The respondents were represented by advocate Sagira Jaffar, appearing vice Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli.
While disposing of the writ petition along with the connected application, the court clarified that its order did not authenticate the marriage or constitute a final determination of the petitioners' age or legal eligibility to marry. These issues would remain subject to verification and compliance with the prevailing laws.