Uttaranchal High Court: While considering a petition seeking directions to Respondents 1 and 2 to provide the necessary protection to the young married couple from respondents and their associates as they seriously apprehend threat to their life and limb from their family members as they were unhappy with their marriage and had given out threats to kill both of them, a Single Judge Bench of Alok Mahra, J., granted them protection and directed the Station House Officer (SHO) to summon the respondents and counsel them.
Background
In the present case, both the petitioners were major, and they got married on 24 March 2026. It was stated that as per the matriculation certificate of Petitioner 1, her date of birth was 18 September 2006, thus, she was 19 years and 6 months old at the time of marriage while the date of birth of Petitioner 2 as per his matriculation certificate was 5 March 2026, thus, he was 20 years old at the time of marriage.
It was contended that since the family members of Petitioner 1 were against the said marriage, they were giving out threats to kill both the petitioners. Further, the petitioners were facing stiff resistance, and they seriously apprehend threat to their life and limb from their family members. Thus, they approached the High Court for protection.
The respondents submitted that since Petitioner 2 had not attained the age of 21 years, the marriage alleged to have been solemnised between the petitioners was not a valid marriage. Per contra, the petitioners contented that despite the said fact, at the most, the marriage could be voidable.
Complying with the Court’s 8 May 2026 order, the parties appeared before the counsellor. The counsellor’s report indicated that Petitioner 1 was not ready to go with her parents and she was happy with the company of Petitioner 2.
Analysis and Decision
The Court referred to Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 and held that the petitioners made out a case for grant of protection.
Thus, the Court directed the SHO to assess the threat, if any, to the life and limb of the petitioners, and provide necessary protection, if it was found that there was a threat to the life and limb of the petitioners. The Court further directed him to summon the respondents, and such other persons, who were inimically placed towards the marriage of the petitioners, and counsel them in accordance with law.
Also read: Read why P&H High Court refused protection to a live-in couple who ran away from home
[Vanshika Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand, WPCRL No. 566 of 2026, decided on 1-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Tajhar Qayyum
For the Respondent: Pranav Singh and Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder
