Petitioners filed this writ seeking protection against threats by the father of Petitioner 1 opposed to their Hindu marriage solemnized in May 2024. Both being majors living voluntarily together, the court granted police protection for six weeks based on Lata Singh precedent.
Directed SHO Roorkee to provide police protection to petitioners for six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPCRL No.587 of 2024 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Hon’ble Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J. Mr. Pankaj Semwal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking protection. According to them, they got married as per Hindu rites and customs on 15.05.2024 and now they are residing as husband and wife, however, father of petitioner no.1, who is opposed to their marriage, is extending threat to them. |
|||
| 3. As per the documents brought on record, both the petitioners are major. Annexure No.1 to the writ petition is certificate of registration of marriage, according to which, marriage of the petitioners was solemnized at Shiv Mandir Shivpuri, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. The said certificate was issued on 03.06.2024. |
|||
| 4. Petitioners appeared before us. We interacted with them. Petitioner no.2 stated that he works as a Contractor in Mirzapur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. He further submits that he has not received any formal education. Petitioner no.1 stated that she has studied upto XII thStandard. She further stated that her father is not happy with their marriage, therefore, he is extending threat to the petitioners. Both of them stated that theyvoluntarilyentered into |
| matrimonial alliance in the absence of threat, undue influence or coercion. |
|---|
| 5. Since both the petitioners are major and they are living together with their own free will, hence in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2006 (5) SCC 475, we are inclined to grant protection to the petitioners. |
| 6. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition with direction to S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar (respondent no.2) to provide protection to petitioners for a period of six weeks and ensure that no harm is caused to them by respondent no.3 or any other person acting on his behest, during this period. Upon expiry of six weeks, the respondent no.2 shall make assessment of threat perception to petitioners, and provide protection to them, if needed, for such further period, as is felt necessary. |
| 7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself. |
| ( Pan k aj Pu r oh it , J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 06.06.2024 Arpan |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether protection can be granted to major petitioners facing parental threats against their voluntary marriage.
Whether the writ court can direct police to provide temporary protection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and AnotherRelied on¶5
Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another; 2006 (5) SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2
State of Uttarakhand
Pankaj Purohit
Manoj Kumar Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
