Zainab @ Bably Kapoor & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This case has been heard through video conferencing.

Exemption application (CLMA No.9813 of 2020) is allowed. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

Petitioners are a married couple who had sought protection from this Court as their marriage was being opposed at the hands of the private

respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. Respondent no.3 is the father of petitioner no.2 and respondent no.4 is the uncle of petitioner no.2. Respondent nos.5 and

6 are the relatives of petitioner no.1.

This Court vide its order dated 07.09.2020 had passed the following order:-

“This case has been heard through video conferencing.

Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2.

Petitioners before this Court are major. As per the averments made in the writ petition their marriage was solemnized on 27.08.2020. Petitioner no.1

belongs to Hindu religion, whereas petitioner no.2 belongs to Muslim religion. However, as per the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner no.1

is converted to Muslim religion. They seek police protection from this Court as they have an apprehension that the private respondents may physically

harm them. Respondent no.3 is the father of petitioner no.2 and respondent no.4 is the uncle of petitioner no.2. Respondent nos.5 and 6 are the

relatives of petitioner no.1.

We say nothing either on the conversion of petitioner no.1 or the marriage, as in view of the alleged anomalies pointed out at the Bar that under the

Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, particularly, in violation of Section 8 of the Act as no such information has been given to the concerned

District Magistrate.

All the same, the fact remains that the petitioners also alleged threat to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.

Presently this case is being heard through video conferencing, in which both petitioner nos.1 and 2 are present in the Court. This Court had interacted

with them. They seem to be major and they have expressed their unambiguous desire to live together.

In the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another

reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, as an interim measure, we direct the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar to coordinate with, and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to provide necessary protection to

the petitioners as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6.

Issue notice to respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. Steps to be taken within a week. Three weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file counter

affidavit.

List this matter on 27.10.2020.

Interim relief application (CLMA No.6907 of 2020) stands disposed.â€​

Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Bilal Ahmed has given a statement before this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, better

sense has prevailed between the parties and the relation between the parties are amicable and there is no more threat perception to the petitioners at

the hands of the private respondents and now they are living peacefully. The counter affidavit which has been filed by the State also narrates factually

the same situation, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, regarding the settlement between the parties. The learned Counsel for the

petitioners prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.

In view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order dated 07.09.2020 is hereby vacated.