Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 485 (UTT)

Gulnaz v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-11-23

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This case has been heard through video conferencing. 2. Petitioners are a married couple who had sought protection from this Court as their marriage was being opposed at the hands of the private respondent nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 who are father, uncles and other relatives of petitioner no.1. 3. This Court vide its order dated 23.09.2020 had passed the following order:- "This case has been heard through video conferencing. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Both the petitioners before this Court belong to the "Muslim" faith. The case of the petitioners before this Court is that their marriage was solemnized on 19.08.2020. Their marriage is being opposed by respondent nos.3 to 7 who are father, uncles and other relatives of petitioner no.1. They have clearly stated in the writ petition that it is the first marriage of petitioner no.1 whereas it is the second marriage of petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.2 have three children from his earlier marriage and his wife, namely, Saista passed away in March, 2019. All these facts are known to petitioner no.1, who is younger sister of first wife of petitioner no.2. They seek police protection from this Court as they have an apprehension that the private respondents may physically harm them. Presently this case is being heard through video conferencing, in which both petitioner nos.1 and 2 are presently connected to us. This Court also had an opportunity to interact with them. They seem to be articulate and they both have apprised this Court that they have a threat perception at the hands of the private respondent nos.3 to 7. In the interest of justice and 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 and S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and another, (2010) 5 SCC 600 , as an interim measure, we direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar to coordinate with the subordinate officers of Police and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to provide necessary protection to the petitioners as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos.3 to 7. Issue notices to respondent nos.3 to 7. Steps to be taken within a week. Issue notices to respondent nos.3 to 7. Steps to be taken within a week. Three weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. List this matter on 23.11.2020. Interim relief application (CLMA No.7547 of 2020) stands disposed. Meanwhile, the defects as pointed out by the Registry be removed." 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Bilal Ahmed has given a statement before this Court, on instructions of his clients, that during the pendency of the writ petition, better sense has prevailed between the parties and the relation between the parties are amicable and there is no more threat perception to the petitioners at the hands of the private respondents and now they are living peacefully. The learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. 5. In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. Interim order dated 23.09.2020 is hereby vacated.