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 ruled that when two individuals live together and claim to be married, the burden of proving the absence of such a marriage rests on the party challenging their assertion [Maria Rashid and Anr v. Union Territory of J&K].
A Division Bench, consisting of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Puneet Gupta, noted that:
“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 hearing an appeal against an order that refused the couple’s request for police protection. The single judge had dismissed their plea, raising concerns about the authenticity of their marriage ceremony.
The couple claimed they were receiving threats from individuals opposing their union.
On February 21, 2025, single judge Justice Javed Iqbal Wani denied their request for police security, citing inconsistencies and contradictions in their claims regarding the marriage.
The couple challenged the single judge’s decision before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench noted that their petition lacked specific details about the alleged threats to their relationship. Consequently, it declined to issue 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 instructed the Rambagh police to consider the couple’s concerns and extend protection if their claims of threats are verified as 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.
