Smt. Reshma & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.

Heard Shri Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Bhat, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the third respondent and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

Petitioners no.1 & 2 married on their own accord, and claim that their marriage was solemnized according to Muslim rituals on 10.11.2018. A copy of the Nikahnama evidencing their marriage is filed along with the writ petition. Contending that they apprehend a threat to their lives, from respondent no.3, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

The father of the first petitioner (third respondent) has filed his counter affidavit. While Shri Bilal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the first petitioner is a divorcee having obtained a divorce from her first husband, Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the third respondent, would dispute this assertion and contend that her marriage with her first husband still subsists; the action of the first petitioner in marrying the second petitioner, despite the subsistence of her marriage with another, has brought disrepute to the third respondent; their action in filing the present writ petition is not bonafide; and their allegation that there is a threat to their lives from him is baseless and false.

Questions as to whether the first petitioner married the second petitioner during the subsistence of her marriage with another, or after having divorced her first husband are all matters which we would not, ordinarily, examine in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If, as is contended by Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the third respondent, the present marriage of the first petitioner with the second petitioner is a nullity, it is always open to the first husband of petitioner no.1 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to declare the marriage of the first petitioner with the second petitioner, as null and void.

As the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked only to the limited extent that the petitioners seek police protection against the third respondent, suffice it to record the submissions of Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel on instructions, that the third respondent has neither threatened nor will he ever threaten the petitioners with dire consequences; and he will not resort any form of violence against them. Recording the submission of Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the third respondent, the writ petition is closed.