The Court was hearing an appeal against a single judge order that had denied a couple’s request for police protection, citing doubts about their marriage.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently stated that when two individuals cohabit and assert their marital status, the responsibility to prove that no such marriage exists falls on the party contesting their claim [Maria Rashid and Anr v. Union Territory of J&K].
A Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Puneet Gupta observed,
“If two people are living together and they say that they are married, then it is for the person who asserts to the contrary to establish that they are not.”
The Court made this observation while considering an appeal against an order that denied the couple’s request for police protection. The single judge had rejected their plea, citing doubts about whether the marriage ceremony had actually taken place.
The couple asserted that they were facing threats from individuals who opposed their marriage.
On February 21, 2025, single judge Justice Javed Iqbal Wani refused to grant them police security, noting inconsistencies and contradictions regarding the occurrence of their marriage.
The couple appealed the single-judge ruling before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench observed that the couple’s petition did not provide specific details regarding the alleged threats to their relationship. As a result, it refrained from issuing a direct order for police protection.
“Material particulars in such a case would be mentioning the name of the person who has conveyed the threat, the date and the mode by which the threat was given. None of those particulars are there in the petition,” the Court found.
Instead, the Court directed the Rambagh police to listen to the couple’s concerns and provide protection if their claims of threats are found to be genuine.
“This appeal can be disposed of with a request to In-charge Women Cell Police Station, Rambagh, to call the appellants, record their statements and thereafter if the police forms an opinion that there is any threat to the appellants, it is for the police to provide such security as it deems appropriate if such threat exists,” the March 3 order said.