2025:HHC:4077 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2888 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Heena Devi and Another ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioners herein, who are major and intend to solemnize marriage with each other, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to provide them adequate security on account of threat perception from respondents No.5 to 8, who are opposed to their marriage. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of official-respondents No.1 to 4, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of aforesaid respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General states that 2025:HHC:4077 2 representation, if any, filed by the petitioner seeking therein protection, shall be considered, in accordance with law. 3. Since no specific relief has been claimed in the instant petition against respondents No.5 to 8 and only prayer has been made for providing Police protection, no fruitful purpose would be served by issuing notice to them, who otherwise shall be associated by the Police at the time of recording statements of the petitioners. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by way of an affidavit and heard petitioners, who are present in person, this Court finds that petitioners, who are major are in a relationship for more than one year. Since parents of petitioner No.1 are opposed to her marriage with petitioner No.2 and they are extending threats, petitioners are compelled to run away from their respective native places. Though, having seen petitioners physically, this Court is convinced that both are major, but even otherwise, such fact is evident from copies of their Aadhaar Cards, placed on record with the petition. 5. Petitioners, while expressing their intention to go back to their native place, apprehend threat to their life on account of continuous threat being extended to them by respondents No.5 to 8 and as such, this Court without going into the correctness of the allegations levelled by the petitioners against respondents No.5 to 8, 2025:HHC:4077 3 deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file a representation to respondent No.3, praying therein for security on account of threat perception, within a period of two days, which in-turn shall be disposed of by respondent No.3, expeditiously, preferably within 24 hours, taking note of threat perception. Ordered accordingly. 6. While doing the needful in terms of instant order, respondent No.3 besides ensuring safe passage to both the petitioners to their respective places, would also ensure that no untoward incident takes place and parties are persuaded to resolve their dispute amicably. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. March 01, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge