PARVAIZA BANOO AND ANOTHER WASEEM RAJA vs UT OF J AND K TH. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, JAMMU AND OTHERS Advocate - MONIKA KOHLI — WP(C)/1013/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 17th April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 17-Apr-2026

CNR: JKHC020020282026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1495/2026

Filing Date

15-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/1013/2026

Registration Date

16-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SB OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ( 101 )

Sub-Category

MATTERS SEEKING PROTECTION ORDERS ( 23 )

Judicial Branch

OTHER WRIT PETITION (OWP)

Decision Date

17-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 226-Section103 Section 1A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARVAIZA BANOO AND ANOTHER WASEEM RAJA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UT OF J AND K TH. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, JAMMU AND OTHERS Advocate - MONIKA KOHLI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria KazmiView PDF

    The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir granted protection to two major adults who married according to Muslim rites against their relatives' wishes, directing authorities to provide adequate security for their life and liberty. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing the right of consenting adults to marry freely, while clarifying the order does not authenticate their marriage validity or majority status and does not bar investigations into other incidents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Apr-2026

    For Admission Before Notice

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/1013/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir granted protection to two major adults who married according to Muslim rites against their relatives' wishes, directing authorities to provide adequate security for their life and liberty. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing the right of consenting adults to marry freely, while clarifying the order does not authenticate their marriage validity or majority status and does not bar investigations into other incidents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case