Respondents undertook not to threaten the petitioners regarding their marriage. The Court found the petition to be infructuous following the assurance by respondents and disposed of the matter accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~27.
SMT BABLI & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Ujjeenwal, Advocate along with petitioners in person.
versus
NCT GOVT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for the State. Respondents No.4 to 7 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
%
O R D E R 10.02.2017
Respondents No.4 to 7 are present in Court. They state that they have accepted the marriage of petitioner No.1 with petitioner No.2. They further state that they have no grievance with the same and they assure and undertake to the Court that they shall not threaten or in any way cause any harm to the petitioners. The said assurance and undertaking given by respondents No.4 to 7 is accepted and they shall remain bound by the same. The petitioners have shifted to Noida, UP.
In view of the aforesaid position, this petition has become infructuous. The same is disposed of as such.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2017
B.S. Rohella
SMT BABLI
ANR
NCT GOVT OF DELHI
ORS
VIPIN SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
