Disposed¶5

Sunita Yadav and Anr. v. U.T.Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jan 2025CRWP/724/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Protection petition before Punjab & Haryana High Court; married couple (marriage dated 19.01.2025) fearing harm from respondents No. 4 to 7; representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) to SSP Chandigarh unanswered; petition disposed of with direction to SSP Chandigarh to consider representation and act per law; no opinion expressed on validity of marriage; bench: Karamjit Singh (oral); APP Y. S. Rathore for U.T. Chandigarh; decision date inferred from attestation stamp 2025.01.24.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to consider representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) and to take action if so warranted in accordance with law. ¶5

Sunita Yadav and Anr. Vs U.T.Chandigarh and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

�� ��

¶2

�� IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

�� Date of Decision:��

��

....Petitioners

VERSUS

��

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

¶10

�� !�� " ��#��$�$ ��

¶11

Mr. Y. S. Rathore, APP, U.T., Chandigarh (through Video Conferencing).

¶12

¶13

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.(Oral)

¶14

Petitioners allege that both of them are major and they got married on 19.01.2025 against the wishes of respondents No.4 to 7 who are related to both the petitioners. This is their first marriage.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid private respondents No.4 to 7 have threatened to cause harm to both the petitioners and in this regard, representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) was given to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh but till date no action has been taken by the concerned authority in this regard.

¶16

Notice of motion.

¶17

Priyanka Thakur 2025.01.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

�� ��%�

¶19

Mr. Y. S. Rathore, APP, U.T., Chandigarh�accepts notice on behalf of U.T. Chandigarh. He submits that the concerned authority will look into the matter and take decision on the representation of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of above, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is hereby disposed of with direction to Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to consider representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) and to take action if so warranted in accordance with law.

¶21

However, any observations made in this order will not be construed as an expression of opinion on the validity of the marriage of the petitioners. In case the petitioners have committed any offence, law will take its own course.

¶22

(KARAMJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶23

��

¶24

Priyanka Thakur

¶25

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶26

Priyanka Thakur 2025.01.24 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sunita Yadav and Anr. v. U.T.Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Yadav and Anr. v. U.T.Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhjot Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vishal Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Alias Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana

Sudhir Kumar Vs Padam Singh

Jatinder Singh Khinda Vs State of Punjab and Ors.