ROHIT KUMAR AND ANOTHHER ANJUM ARIF GANAI vs UT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AFFAIRS, JAMMU AND OTHERS — WP(C)/1456/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 20th May 2026.

CNR: JKHC020029102026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

20th May 2026

Filing Number

WP(C)/2169/2026

Filing Date

18-05-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/1456/2026

Registration Date

19-05-2026

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

20th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Article 226-Section103 Section 1A

Petitioner(s)

ROHIT KUMAR AND ANOTHHER ANJUM ARIF GANAI

Respondent(s)

UT OF J AND K TH. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AFFAIRS, JAMMU AND OTHERS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI

20-05-2026

FOR ADMISSION Before Notice

Orders

20-05-2026
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI

Case Summary: WP(C) 1456/2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir granted protection to two major adults (Rohit Kumar and Simran Sharma) who married by their free will on 07.05.2026 according to Hindu rites. The petitioners feared physical violence and harassment from relatives opposed to their marriage. The court directed official respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioners' life and liberty, while clarifying this protection does not authenticate their marriage or majority status, and does not prevent investigations into unrelated incidents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(C) 1456/2026 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir granted protection to two major adults (Rohit Kumar and Simran Sharma) who married by their free will on 07.05.2026 according to Hindu rites. The petitioners feared physical violence and harassment from relatives opposed to their marriage. The court directed official respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioners' life and liberty, while clarifying this protection does not authenticate their marriage or majority status, and does not prevent investigations into unrelated incidents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case