Uttarakhand HC Orders Police Protection for Couple Facing Family Threats Over Marriage
Justice Alok Mahra directs Haridwar police to assess threat and protect a married couple, relying on Lata Singh v State of U.P. after a counsellor's report backed the wife's stand.
The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the Station House Officer of Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar, to assess any threat to the life of a couple whose marriage their family opposed, and to provide protection if such threat is found. Justice Alok Mahra, hearing Vanshika Tomar and Another v. State of Uttarakhand (WPCRL/566/2026), passed the order on 01.07.2026 after the couple's counsel said family members were giving out threats to kill both petitioners.
The petitioners had moved the court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide protection from the respondents and their associates. The parents of petitioner no. 1 were present before the court on the date of hearing.
The Dispute Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioners told the bench that both parties were major and had solemnised their marriage on 24.03.2026. Petitioner no. 1's matriculation certificate showed her date of birth as 18.09.2006, making her 19 years and 6 months old at the time of marriage. Petitioner no. 2's matriculation certificate recorded his date of birth as 05.03.2006, making him 20 years old at the time.
The family members of petitioner no. 1 were opposed to the marriage and had allegedly threatened to kill both petitioners. Counsel submitted that the couple was facing stiff resistance and apprehended a genuine threat to their life and limb, which is why they had approached the High Court.
The Question Over Petitioner No. 2's Age
Counsel for private respondent nos. 3 to 6 argued that petitioner no. 2 had not attained 21 years, the eligibility age of marriage for a male, and so the marriage solemnised between the petitioners was not valid.
Petitioners' counsel countered that even if petitioner no. 2 had not attained 21 years at the time of solemnisation, the marriage would at most be voidable, not void.
The Counsellor's Report and the Coordinate Bench's Order
A Coordinate Bench, by order dated 08.05.2026, had earlier directed the parties to appear before a counsellor. The report submitted by the counsellor indicated that petitioner no. 1 was not ready to go with her parents and was happy in the company of petitioner no. 2.
Justice Mahra treated this report as material to the question of protection, noting it alongside the age dispute raised by the private respondents. The bench did not adjudicate the validity of the marriage in this proceeding, confining itself to the question of protection.
Reliance on Lata Singh v State of U.P.
The court invoked the Supreme Court's ruling in Lata Singh v State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, to hold that the petitioners had made out a case for grant of protection. The order records that “the petitioners have made out a case for grant of protection,” in view of that ruling and the counsellor's findings.
The bench did not go into the merits of the validity dispute over petitioner no. 2's age, treating the threat to life as the operative concern warranting protective directions.
Directions to the Station House Officer
The court directed the SHO, Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar, to assess if there is any threat to the life and limb of the petitioners, and to provide necessary protection if such a threat is found to exist.
The SHO was further directed to summon the private respondents, and any other persons found to be inimically placed towards the marriage, and to counsel them in accordance with law.
Order
The writ petition was ordered accordingly and disposed of on 01.07.2026 by Justice Alok Mahra.