Disposed

Palak v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Oct 2025WPCRL/1180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitoners, two major individuals married to each other, approached the High Court seeking protection from threats and harassment extended by their respective family members. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's mandate in Lata Singh and directed the State to ensure the couple's safety without interference.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar to ensure the petitioners do not face harassment or threats from anyone.

Palak Vs State of Uttarakhand — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1180 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Palak and another

¶4

......... Petitioners

¶5

Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …....Respondents

¶6

Present: Mr. S.C. Burman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶9

A joint writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking adequate protection.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶11

record.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 both are major. They were in relationship for a long. On 22.05.2025, they got married as per Hindu rites and rituals. On 29.05.2025, they got their marriage registered. The registration certificate is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the family members of the petitioner no.1, who are private respondents in the petition are not happy with the marriage. Therefore, they are extending threats to the petitioners.

¶13

Both the petitioners are present in person before this Court duly identified by their counsel. The Court interacted with them.

¶14

¶15

According to them, they are major and they have solemnized the marriage.

¶16

In the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed as hereunder:-

¶17

“17…………………We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes intercaste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such person as provided by law.”

¶18

This Court reminds Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar the mandate of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh (supra), who shall ensure the compliance thereof.

¶19

With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Let a copy of this order be immediately forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar for necessary compliance and a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.

¶21

(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

¶22

06.10.2025 06.10.2025

¶23

Jitendra

Palak v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palak 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roorkee Hospital Vs Chairman State Health Authority

Nidhi Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sukumbari Engeineering Work Vs Commissioner of the Cgst

Manwar Singh Rawat Vs Renu Rawat

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sachin Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand