Dismissed

Akanksha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC11 Jul 2019WPCRL/698/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ protection against harassment by relatives of her estranged brother-in-law to grab property. Court held writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not maintainable for matrimonial property disputes. Petition dismissed; liberty granted to make representation to SSP.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to make representation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun for protection.

Akanksha Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Domestic Violence | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPCRL No. 698 of 2019 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

¶2

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Thind, Brief Holder for the State. Heard.

¶3

The writ petition has been filed for seeking the following reliefs:-

¶4

“I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to provide police protection to the petitioner. II. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to ensure that respondent nos.4, 5 and 6 shall not endanger the life and liberty of the petitioner.”

¶5

According to the petitioner her brother got married to respondent no.6, but thereafter, they had some matrimonial discord; no child was born out from the wedlock. Petitioner’s brother and respondent no.6 filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 B of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is stated that just to harass the petitioner and to grab the property of the petitioner’, respondent no.6 has sent her relatives to trouble the petitioner.

¶6

Learned counsel for the State filed counter affidavit. According to the State, brother of the petitioner married to respondent no.6 and they have matrimonial discord. The petitioner may seek the remedies in appropriate forum.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that she seeks protection of her life and liberty. She has no matrimonial discord with anyone. Respondent nos.4 and 6 are threatening and troubling her in order to grab the property of the petitioner. Therefore, protection may be granted.

¶8

In alternate, it is also urged that the petitioner may be given liberty to make representation to Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun for her protection.

¶9

Petitioner’s brother Gaurav Singh and respondent no.6 after marriage developed matrimonial discord. There are allegations of threatening and harassment for grabbing the property.

¶10

In the case where there is established matrimonial discord and dispute with regard to the property, this Court is of the view that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶11

The petition is dismissed.

¶12

However, the petitioner is free to make representation to Senior Superintendent of Police concerned.

¶13

( Ravindra Maithani , J. ) (Alok Singh, J.) Shubham 11.07.2019

Akanksha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akanksha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Sardar Gaganjot Singh Sethi Vs Smt Rinit Bhamrah Sethi

Deep Singh @ Pradeep Singh @ Laddu Vs Seniour Superintendent of Police U.S Nagar

Sabnoor Alias Khushi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Smt Jyoti Pandey Vs Ashish Dev Pandey

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Khatija Vs State Ofuttarakhand