Partly allowed

Smt. Ameena Banu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2024WP/16685/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interfaith married couple sought mandamus directing police protection against threats by the wife's father and sisters, who allegedly demanded religious conversion. The court noted an interim protection order had been effective and partly allowed the writ petition, directing respondents 3 and 4 to extend preferential protection on request for at least one year.

What did the court decide?

Police protection to be extended by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as and when requested, for at least one year.

Smt. Ameena Banu Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34864 WP No. 16685 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 16685 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. AMEENA BANU D/O MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT 107, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND HOUSE, SAI RAM LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNA NILAYA, 3^RD MAIN CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD A CROSS, T C PALYA, BANGALORE-560036.

¶9

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. ANTHONY JOSEPH JEROME S/O ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 107, 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND HOUSE, SAI RAM LAYOUT, ANNAPOORNA NILAYA, 3^RD MAIN CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 3^RD A CROSS, T C PALYA, BANGALORE-560036

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI HIRAN KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34864 WP No. 16685 of 2023

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.2, ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560051.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE WHITEFIELD DIVISION, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, RUSTAMJEE LAYOUT, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066.

¶18

STATION HOUSE OFFICER KRISHNARAJA PURAM POLICE STATION, NEW POLICE STATION ROAD, KRISHNARAJAPURA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560036

¶19

SRI. MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE THADPATRI S/O ABDUL SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT No.65, SATTAR HOUSE, 2^ND CROSS, KSFC LAYOUT, OIL MILL ROAD, AALIMATHA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560084.

¶20

SMT. AYESHA BANU D/O MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE THADPATRI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT No.65, SATTAR HOUSE, 2^ND CROSS, KSFC LAYOUT, OIL MILL ROAD, AAIMATHA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560084.

¶21

SMT. MUBEENA BANU D/O MOHAMMED SIDDIQUE THADPATRI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, SATTAR HOUSE,

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34864 WP No. 16685 of 2023

¶23

2^ND CROSS, KSFC LAYOUT, OIL MILL ROAD, AAIMATHA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE-560084.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI S.H. RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. SHABINA BEGUM, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6 & R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A MANDAMUS CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE INTERFAITH COUPLE AND ALSO CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINTS MADE BY THE PETITIONERS AT THE KR PURAM POLICE STATION (ANNEXURE-A (COLLY) DATED 19/07/2023 AND THE LETTER (ANNEXURE-B) DATED 20/07/2023 AND THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WHITEFIELD DIVISION, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE C) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, (ANNEXURE D) BOTH DATED 21/07/2023 AND DIRECT THEM TO SUBMIT A REPORT THEREOF BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:34864 WP No. 16685 of 2023

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K V ARAVIND

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are seeking mandamus to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to provide police protection. The petitioners are compelled to approach this court due to the following facts:

¶33

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 belong to different religions and married in 2022. Respondent No.5, 6 and 7 who are none other than the father and sisters of petitioner No.1 are interfering with the family of the petitioners and attempting to threaten the petitioner No.2 for conversion of religion. It is further stated in the petition that respondent Nos.5 to 7 have compelled petitioner No.2 to execute affidavit undertaking to convert his religion.

¶34

This court by interim direction dated 08.08.2023 directed respondent Nos.3 and 4 to ensure protection to the petitioners by making appropriate arrangements.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34864 WP No. 16685 of 2023

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶37

in view of the interim direction, the petitioners are peacefully living. Learned counsel submits that the arrangement made in the interim order dated 08.08.2023 shall be continued.

¶38

5. Mr.S.H.Raghavendra, learned Additional

¶39

Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have extended protection to the petitioners as and when a request has been made. It is submitted that even without any directions of the court, the respondents would respond to the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶40

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances involved in the present case and in order to avoid any illegal demands being enforced by respondent Nos.5 to 7 on the petitioners and to allow the petitioners to lead their life without any interference by respondent Nos.5 to 7 the following directions are issued:

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34864 WP No. 16685 of 2023

¶42

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶43

(ii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall ensure extending protection to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 as and when request is made at the earliest.

¶44

(iii) The said preferential protection shall be atleast for a period of one year from the date of this order.

¶45

Accordingly writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

Smt. Ameena Banu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ameena Banu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Saravaloka Services Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Govindaraju Vs Corporation Bank

Smt S Reddamma Vs Corporation Bank

Mr Shivalinga D Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Paul Moteiro Vs M/S Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance Ltd.