Disposed

Aarushi Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Government of U.K. Secretariat Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC3 Jan 2023WPCRL/7/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, major adults desiring an interreligious marriage, approached the Court seeking protection from relatives. The Court directed the State to assess perceived threats and provide necessary protection to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to assess threats and provide necessary protection to petitioners; direction to counsel opposing parties not to take law into their own hands.

Aarushi Bansal Vs State of Uttarakhand through… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL

¶2

THE HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI VI PI N SANGHI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI

¶3

W RI T PETI TI ON ( CRI MI NAL) NO. 0 7 OF 2 0 2 3

¶4

3^{r d} JANUARY, 2 0 2 3

¶5

Between:

¶6

Aarushi Bansal and another …… Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

State of Uttarakhand & others

¶9

…… Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners	: Mr. Harshp counsel	al Se	khon,	learn	ed
Counsel for the respondents	: Mr. Rakesh Brief Holder	Kumar for	Joshi, the S	learn tate	ed of
	Uttarakhand 2 and 3	/ resp	ondent	Nos.	1,

¶11

Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g:

¶12

JUDGMENT: ( per Hon ’ble Ju st ice Sr i Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i)

¶13

The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to seek direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to provide them protection from respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are the father and uncles of petitioner No. 1.

¶14

The petitioner No. 1 is a female, who belongs to Hindu religion. Her date of birth is 01.03.2004. In support of this submission, the petitioners have placed

¶15

¶16

on record copies of the birth certificate, and report card issued in respect of petitioner No. 1 for the Session 2016-17, which records her date of birth as 01.03.2004. Petitioner No. 1 is, therefore, a major, as on date. Petitioner No. 2 is also a major, who is 23 years old. He belongs to Muslim religion.

¶17

Parties are present in Court. They state that out of their love and affection, they wish to get married. We have enquired from petitioner No. 1, who states that she does not wish to convert her religion. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 states that he too would not be converting his religion, and they state that they would get married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. They apprehend threats and harm from respondent Nos. 4 to 6, since they prefer to enter into an interreligious marriage, which is not being approved by the said respondents.

¶18

Since the petitioners are major, they are entitled to take their own decisions, inter alia , in relation to their marriage.

¶19

We, therefore, dispose of this petition with direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to assess the threat perceived by the petitioners from respondent Nos. 4 to

¶20

¶21

6, and provide them protection to the extent necessary. The respondent No. 3 shall counsel respondent Nos. 4 to

¶22

6 not to take the law into their own hands.

¶23

1. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Interim Relief Application (IA No. 01 of 2023) also stands disposed of.

¶25

Urgent copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, during the course of the day, as per Rules.

¶26

________________ VI PI N SANGHI , C.J.

¶27

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI , J.

¶28

Dt: 3^rd JANUARY, 2023 Negi

Aarushi Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Government of U.K. Secretariat Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarushi Bansal v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Home, Government of U.K. Secretariat Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Vs Shalini Shanu

M/S Yogesh Singh Mehta through Its Proprietor Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nishikant Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Siddhant Singh Vs Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Khalid Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Falcon Security and Multipurpose Services through Its Sole Proprietor Vs Secretary Department of Urban Development State of Uttarakhand