Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 446 (UTT)

Vijay Laxmi Manchanda v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-08

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, C.J. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “(A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent no. 1 & 2 to provide adequate safety and security to the petitioners as the petitioners are seriously apprehending the fear of life and liberty at the hands of respondent no. 3 to 7.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: (i) Petitioner no. 1 is an aged lady of 70 years and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are unmarried daughters (twins) of petitioner no. 1 and are living with petitioner no. 1. The son of petitioner no. 1 is married to respondent no. 3 and it is alleged that there were quarrels. Respondent nos. 4 to 7 are said to be the father, mother and brothers of the respondent no. 3. There is reference to an F.I.R. being lodged against the son of petitioner no. 1 and the present petitioners under Dowry Prohibition Act. Enquiry was conducted. There is reference to stay by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is also reference to proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and there is an order by the trial court, it is alleged, directing custody of the minor son of the son of petitioner no. 1 to be given to respondent no. 3. There is also reference to a criminal revision before this Court. In respect of the house, in which the petitioners are living, and another property, which is owned exclusively by petitioner no. 1, according to her, she has filed civil suit No. 69 of 2015 against her son and Hari Kishan Manchanda (devar of petitioner no.1); an injunction has been granted vide decision dated 29.01.2016. According to petitioner no. 1, she has dissolved all her relations with her son and has disowned him from her entire property; however, this has led to annoyment on the part of respondent nos. 3 to 7. There is allegation of threat and, on the said basis, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Today, when the matter came up, we heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nikhil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 7 and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. 4. 3. Today, when the matter came up, we heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Nikhil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 7 and Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State. 4. The petitioners are seeking protection to enforce the injunction, which is obtained essentially against the own son of petitioner no. 1 and another. The case of the petitioners is that, on the basis of the order granting custody of the minor child, respondent nos. 3 to 7 are causing threat to the petitioners. In this regard, Mr. Nikhil Singh, learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that there will be no threat to the petitioners; they have already taken steps to execute the said order; and the proceedings will be taken as per law. We record these submissions. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General also would submit that a report is received that there is no threat to the petitioners. 6. In such circumstances, we leave it open to petitioner no. 1 and also the party respondents to take appropriate steps in the competent forum in regard to the property rights and also in respect of the right of custody granted by the competent court. We also record the submission of the party respondents that they will not cause any threat to the petitioners. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.