CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2023) 02 J&K CK 0031

Mohammad Ismail Wagay & Anr vs Zubair Ahmad Wagay & Ors

Jammu And Kashmir High Court · Decided on 2 February 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajnesh Oswal, J · Mohan Lal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous No. 315, 316 Of 2023, Latters Patent Appeal No. 06 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 343 words

Mohan Lal, J

CM No. 315/2023

1.

For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned.

2.

CM No. 315/2023 disposed of.

LPA No. 06.2023 CM No. 316/2023

3.

The appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Writ Court in WP(C) No. 207/2022, whereby the official respondents were directed to ensure the protection of life and liberty of the petitioners therein i.e., respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein.

4.

The contention raised by the appellants in the present intra-court appeal is that the respondents were not put to any notice by the Writ Court and further that the respondent No.1 was already married and has solemnized the marriage without the consent of his first wife i.e., respondent No.8.

5.

Mr. S.R.Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the respondent No.1 was already married and the order impugned dated 15.02.2022 was kept as a guarded secret by respondent No.1 & 2 and they came to know only when respondent No.2, who is the daughter of appellant No.1, disappeared from her home.

6.

The perusal of the order dated 15.02.2022 reveals that the official respondents 3 to 7 herein have been directed to ensure protection of life and liberty of respondents 1 & 2 herein and no order has been passed against the appellants though they figured as respondents in the Writ Petition.

7.

The contention of the appellants that the respondent No.1 has solemnized marriage with respondent No.2 without consent of his first wife i.e., respondent No.8, cannot be considered in this appeal as the same was beyond the scope of the Writ Petition, otherwise also the grievance with regard of second marriage could have been raised only by respondent No.8. Moreso, it is the duty of the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of its citizens and, as such, there is nothing wrong in the order impugned.

8.

Viewed thus, we find the instant appeal misconceived, as such, is dismissed along-with all connected application(s).