Vacating the interim protection granted to an interfaith couple, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed their plea to set aside an FIR lodged by the woman’s father-in-law, who had accused the man of abducting her while she was still legally married to his son.Justice M A Chowdhary observed that the interfaith couple had failed to provide sufficient material for setting aside the FIR registered against them.Citing a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the June 29 order noted that “judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the detenu.”The petitioners, a 23-year-old woman and a man, approached the court seeking to set aside an FIR filed by the woman’s father-in-law at Police Station, Baramulla, alleging her abduction, and they also challenged the non-bailable warrants issued against the man.The woman claimed that she had moved to Delhi in December 2024 to pursue a computer course, where she developed a friendship with the man, and that her family was against the friendship because the man belonged to a different religion. Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed an interfaith couple’s plea for setting aside an FIR against them.She alleged that when she returned to Kashmir on the occasion of Eid in March 2025, her uncle and relatives forced her to marry a man, who, after marriage, sexually assaulted her and threatened her.On May 25, 2025, she escaped to Delhi to be with the man and stated that she voluntarily left and was never abducted or kidnapped, and on the same day her father-in-law filed a complaint; subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 87 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and began investigating the case.Story continues below this adThe police, during the investigation, claimed that the Delhi man was involved in helping the woman run her house. However, the woman clarified to the police that she had travelled on her own will, and that she was scared to return to Kashmir.The woman also said that she wanted to divorce her husband; meanwhile, the complainant produced an Arya Samaj marriage certificate and photograph to show that she had married the man in Delhi.Woman fears harassment: StateThe state contended that when the woman was asked to appear for investigation after the FIR was registered, she did not appear because she feared harassment from both her parental and marital families, and requested the investigation to be conducted in Delhi.The state highlighted that the investigation has been put on hold by the high court, and since the case involves an accusation of abduction of a married woman, a proper investigation was necessary to ascertain the facts.Story continues below this adThe complainant, on the other hand, argued that his daughter-in-law was legally married to his son, and was abducted by the man whom she met in Delhi while pursuing her computer course. He added that despite being married to his son, she married another man, and on these grounds prayed that the FIR be disclosed as a cognisable offence and should not be quashed.The court observed that it was a settled legal position that enticing away a married woman with the intention to engage her in illicit sexual intercourse with someone else is a recognised criminal offence under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court said that besides, without dissolution of the earlier marriage of the woman, she has stated to have performed marriage with the Delhi man, which also constitutes an offence of bigamy under Section 82 (deals with the offence of bigamy) of BNS. In the view of the material on record, the court said that the complaint which was lodged by the father-in-law of the woman, for her alleged abduction, does not suffer from any infirmity, which may be classified as an abuse of the process of law in any manner, to set aside the FIR. Story continues below this adTaking into consideration that the woman fears for her safety while appearing before the investigating agency, the court said that the same can be addressed by allowing her to be examined at a place where she feels safe, in accordance with law.The court held that the petitioners have failed to produce sufficient evidence to make out a case to justify setting aside the FIR. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed, and all interim protection granted earlier is vacated.