AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 280 wordsSubhash Upadhyay, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
It is submitted that both the petitioners belong to the same faith, and that the petitioners developed a liking for each other, which has ended in marriage, and now both the petitioners are living together. Since the family members of petitioner no.1 are against this marriage, they are giving out threats to kill both the petitioners. Petitioners submit that they are facing stiff resistance, and they seriously apprehend threat to their life and limb from the family members of the first petitioner, and hence they are before this Court praying for protection.
The documents on record reveal that both the petitioners are major, and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have performed marriage on 29.12.2025 at Shiv Mandir Roorkee, Tehsil Campus Roorkee, District Haridwar.
In that view of the matter, and in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of protection.
The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar is directed to assess the threat, if any, to the life and limb of the petitioners, and provide necessary protection, if it is found that there is a threat to the life and limb of the petitioners. The SHO is further directed to summon the private respondent, and such other persons, who are inimically placed towards the marriage of the petitioners, and counsel them, in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands ordered accordingly.