Dismissed

P.Shaheena, , Shanti v. The Diputy Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet

Telangana HC2 Nov 2010WP/19578/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging police interference in an inter-religious marriage between majors, the court, relying on an affidavit from the police S.I., found no legal basis for interference and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed and police directed not to interfere with the petitioners' life and liberty except as required by law.

P.Shaheena, , Shanti Vs The Diputy Superintendent… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO : 19578 of 2008

¶3

Dated: 2.11.2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. P. Shaheena and another

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet, Guntur District and others.

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following :

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO : 19578 of 2008

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in interfering with the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners and also with the parents of the 2^nd petitioner at the instance of respondents 4 and 5, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

According to the petitioners, the 1^st petitioner married to the 2^nd petitioner. The 1^st petitioner belongs to Hindu religion and the 2^nd petitioner belongs to Muslim religion and the in-laws of the 1^st petitioner have no objection. But, her parents are not willing for their marriage and in such circumstances, the 2^nd petitioner and the 1^st petitioner decided to marry, as they are majors. Accordingly, on 14.7.2008, the 1^st petitioner converted into Muslim religion in the office of the District Government Quazi, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam and changed her name as “Shaheena” in the presence of the witnesses, who are their friends, and on the same day the marriage of the petitioners was performed and they are living happily. While that being so, the parents of the 1^st petitioner, police and respondents 4 and 5 are interfering with their life and liberty.

¶16

There is no necessity of going into all the details.

¶17

The 3^rd respondent filed a detailed counter and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that as of now, no complaint is received against the petitioners from the parents of either

¶18

of the petitioners and that the 3^rd respondent-S.I. of Police visited the houses of respondents 4 and 5, who are the uncles of the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner herein and enquired with them and that they voluntarily stated that the petitioners are majors and they never interfered with their life and liberty and they never objected for their marriage and further stated that they will never interfere with their personal liberties in future. Further, the 3^rd respondent stated that the police never sent any of the constables to the house of the petitioners nor summoned their parents to the police station or made them to sit in the police station.

¶19

In view of the same, nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. However, the police are directed not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners except as required under law. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.

¶20

____________________ Justice C.V. Ramulu Dated:2.11.2010 Nn.

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO : 19578 of 2008

¶23

2.11.2010

P.Shaheena, , Shanti v. The Diputy Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shaheena, , Shanti v. The Diputy Superintendent of Police, Narasaraopet

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

Md.Bakhar Ali Vs The Apsrtc.

Somisetty Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vs M/s. Sri Saibaba Cold Storage

Master Banala Shalem Prem Chand, being Minor Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary

Katta Venkata Ramappa Vs The Govt., of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Smt Y. Aruna Vs The Superintendent of Police

Judith Manjula, Vs University of Hyd