Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRWP/10991/2020 of TABBU AND ANR Vs STATE OF UT CHD AND ORS on 31 December 2020
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.10991 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.12.2020 Tabbu and Another ..…... Petitioner(s) V/s. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Others ….....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Vijay
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRWP No.10991 of 2020 (O&M)Date of Decision: 31.12.2020
Tabbu and Another)
.....e Petitioner(s) |V/s]ws. Respondent(s) |
State of U.T. Chandigarh and Others
CORAMHON(BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:Mr. Vijay Lakshmi, Advocatefor the petitioner(s).
RRR
Through Video Conference
Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India seeking direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to protect life|and liberty of the petitioner and to restrain the private respondent Nos.4 to 7 from|harassing or interference in the married life of the petitioner(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both thepetitioners are already married earlier somewhere else and they are not having|good relations with their respective spouses and have entered into a Panchayati|Divorce but have not got any decree of divorce trom the Court of law. He has|submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are now living together and also have got|married each other vide Annexure P3 and they are getting threats at the hands of|the private respondents.
At this stage, Mr. Rajiv Vij, Additional PP, U.T. Chandigarh has, caused appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 and has submitted that he perception was also assessed by the police and it was found that there was no threat to the petitioners at all. |
In view of above, no interference is called for in the present case and.
therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
31[St ]December, 2020
Sonia Purl
Whether speaking/reasonedWhether reportable : Yes/No: Yes/No (Jasgurpreet Singh Pur) |
JUDGE