Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010064362025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1753/2025 ATIYA TANVI RAHMAN D/O- ATOWAR RAHMAN, R/O- VILL- CHARALDANGA, P.S.- GAURIPUR, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND POLITICAL, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHUBRI ASSAM. 3:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE GAURIPUR POLICE STATION DISTRICT- DHUBRI Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MR B KAUSHIK,MS S A KHALIFA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 23.04.2025 (K.R. Surana, J Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 2. By filing this present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent No. 3 who was the officer- in-charge of the Gauripur Police Station is pressurizing the petitioner to return to her parental home. It is projected that the petitioner, being an adult, has married a person of her choice and is living a happy conjugal life with the said person. 3. Pursuant to order dated 09.04.2025, the learned Senior Government Advocate has produced a copy of instructions dated 17.04.2025 which is received from the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri stating that the Officer-in- charge of the Gauripur Police Station has collected the Aadhaar card of the petitioner showing her date of birth to be 27.10.2006 and therefore, an adult. It is further stated that on 04.04.2025, the petitioner had appeared before the Gauripur Police Station and had stated that she was a major and had married a person of her choice, without informing her parents. She has also produced a document regarding her marriage declaration. It is also stated that as the father and other family members of the petitioner were unable to find her whereabouts, the Officer-in-charge of the Gauripur Police Station had made an effort to trace her out and no intention of harassing the petitioner. Page No.# 3/3 4. Be that as it may, although the Court cannot record its satisfaction to the manner in which the Officer-in-charge of the Gauripur Police Station had made an attempt to trace out the petitioner, without recording of even an GD entry to that effect which is impermissible in law. However, as the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri has stated in his instructions that there is no intention to harass the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the grievance of the petitioner has been addressed, she should not pursue the matter. However, he submits that in the event the petitioner is threatened by any police action, she may be given liberty to approach this Court again. 5. The prayer is allowed. 6. The matter stands closed having not been pressed with liberty as prayed for. 7. The instructions produced by the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate is made a part of record. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant