Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti held that the status and presence of a Pakistani national, who claimed to have solemnized an online marriage with an Indian citizen, would remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The Court directed that, in the meantime, her ouster from the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir would be governed accordingly. Notices were issued to the respondents, and a timeline for filing replies was prescribed.

The matter arose from a writ petition filed by two individuals: the first petitioner, an Indian citizen serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and the second petitioner, a Pakistani citizen. The petitioners claimed to have solemnized their marriage through an online process while residing in their respective countries—the first petitioner in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the second petitioner in Pakistan.

Also Read: Central Excise Tariff Act | Gist of Test Reports Insufficient for Reclassification: Supreme Court Sets Aside Duty Demand

According to the pleadings, the second petitioner had entered India on a Tourist/Visitor Visa bearing number VN0245039, which expired on 22 March 2025. The petitioners relied on annexed documents, including wedding cards and a purported Nikahnama (marriage certificate), which indicated the place of marriage as Handwal, Jammu.

The Court noted that the representation of Handwal, Jammu as the marriage venue suggested a physical solemnization, which did not reflect the factual situation. The record showed that the marriage had taken place via an online mode, with each petitioner located in a different country during the alleged ceremony.

The petition also revealed that the first petitioner had informed his employer, the CRPF, of his intent to marry a Pakistani woman. The planned date of marriage was noted to be 5 November 2023. However, the marriage did not occur on that date, as the second petitioner had not arrived in India, nor had the first petitioner traveled to Pakistan.

Subsequent to a series of events following the Pahalgam carnage, in which 27 Indian citizens were killed in a terrorist attack, the Government of India invoked its sovereign powers to revoke visas of Pakistani nationals visiting India on categories other than diplomatic, official, or long-term visas. This action included the revocation of the second petitioner’s tourist visa.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second petitioner had applied for a Long-Term Visa (LTV) pursuant to Communication No. 28020/58/2014-F.III dated 15 December 2014 from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The petitioners contended that this application was pending and should be considered in light of the claimed marital status.

According to the petition, upon the expiry of her visa, the second petitioner was issued an Exit Permit. However, based on her representation, this permit was subsequently cancelled, and her immigration status was said to be under re-evaluation by the competent authorities.

The petitioners sought a judicial direction to prevent her ouster pending the outcome of her visa application and the final adjudication of the present writ proceedings. The matter was registered with urgency under a Special Original Suit (SOS) note.

The Court recorded, “The petitioner No. 1 is said to have solemnized marriage with the petitioner No. 2 who is a Pakistani citizen by online marriage mode. Whether such type of marriage is permissible/recognisable in the eyes of law, is an aspect which requires attention of Government of India.”

It further stated, “The very fact that the place of Nikah is shown to be Handwal Jammu, per-se, meant that the marriage was solemnized in physical mode taking place at Jammu which is not the factual situation in the present case.” The Court noted, “The purported marriage came to take place by online mode that is the petitioner No. 2 was in Pakistan at her residential house and the petitioner No. 1 in UT of J&K at his own house.”

Regarding the petitioner's prior communication with his employer, the Court observed, “Petitioner No.1 is said to have apprised with his employer-CRPF about the fact that he intends to marry a Pakistani woman and even had given the proposed date of marriage to be 05.11.2023 but the marriage did not take place on the given date.”

The Court considered the broader context of visa restrictions post the Pahalgam incident, stating, “The Government of India has activated its sovereign power to oust the visiting Pakistani Nationals in India on Visas other than the ones as excepted… Visas of every other kind including Visitor’s Visa in favour of Pakistani Nationals stand revoked with immediate effect.”

On the issue of the Long-Term Visa application, the Court recorded, “It is for the Government of India to consider whether Long-Term Visa in favour of petitioner No. 2 to be issued or not even if there is a request made and pending.”

The Court also addressed the petitioners’ claim concerning cancellation of the Exit Permit, noting, “Upon expiry of her Tourist Visa, the petitioner No. 2 was put on an Exit Permit… but upon her representation, the Exit Permit operating upon her has come to be cancelled and position is being re-examined.”

Summing up the conditional status of the second petitioner, the Court recorded, “The petitioner No. 2 would accordingly become either the beneficiary or the non-beneficiary of the outcome, so as to govern her status whether to be in India for all time to come as wife of petitioner No. 1 or to stay back in Pakistan continuing to be the wife of the petitioner No. 1.”

Also Read: "J&K High Court Grants Temporary Bail to NDPS Accused to Care for Ailing Daughter Undergoing Surgery"

The Court directed that notice be issued to the respondents in both the main petition and the connected miscellaneous petition. It recorded that Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, while Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

The respondents were granted a period of ten days to file their reply. The matter was ordered to be listed on 14.05.2025. In the interim, the Court recorded that the second petitioner, who was directed to be ousted from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, would have her ouster and status subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India; Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Munir Ahmed & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 1054/2025

Bench: Justice Rahul Bharti

[Read/Download order]