Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/963/2026 of NEHA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 27 May 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/963/2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL/963/2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. By the instant petition, petitioner no. 1 – Smt. Neha, W/o Chaman Saini and petitioner no. 2 – Chaman Saini, S/o Jay Chand Singh, are praying for adequate protection, since there is threat perception from respondent nos. 4 to 5, father, uncle and brother of petitioner no. 1, since all of them are against their marriage.
4. Both the petitioners are present in person and they are duly identified by their counsel.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and both were in love and married with each other on 28.04.2025 at Maa Balsundari Devi Ujjani Peeth, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar and they have also registered their marriage in the office of Sub Registrar, Registration of Marriage, Udham Singh Nagar and copy of their marriage certificate is enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. In support of their age, petitioners have enclosed their High School Certificate and Adhar Cards.
6. Learned State Counsel has not disputed about their age and marriage.
7. In such view of the matter, since both the petitioners are major and married with each other and there is threat perception from respondent nos. 4 to 6, therefore, in such an eventuality, the State administration is under legal obligation to assess the threat perception and take appropriate steps to secure their life and liberty of the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the SSP, U.S. Nagar – respondent no. 2 to make an assessment of the threat perception if any and if he comes to the conclusion that there is any threat from respondent nos. 4 to 6, take appropriate steps.
9. In addition to this, SHO concerned is also directed to call upon respondent nos. 4 to 6 and advise them not to take law in their hand.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 27.05.2026 SKS