xSL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 637 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. By the instant petition, the petitioners Smt. Marium D/o Kamil Hussain and Mohammad Alim S/o Bundu Hasan are praying for protection since there is a threat perception from the respondent no. 3 to 8. 4. Both the petitioners are present in Court and are identified by their counsel Mr. Abhishek Verma. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and they are known to each other since last more than one year. He also submits that now both the petitioners have married on 16.09.2025, however, there is a threat perception from the private respondents, since the respondent no. 3/father of the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 4/brother of the petitioner no.1 were against this marriage. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner no. 1 was taken into custody by respondent no. 3 and 4 forcibly and consequently the petitioner no. 2 preferred a Habeas Corpus Petition. In the meantime, the petitioner no. 2 was arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail. 7. The Nikahnama with regard to their marriage is also enclosed as Annexure-2. So far as the date of birth of the petitioners are concerned, the High School certificate of petitioner no. 1 is enclosed, according to which the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 01.11.2003 and so far as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned as per Aadhaar Card his date of birth is 01.12.1993. By showing their date of birth, the counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major. 8. Mr. Himanshu Sain, the learned A.G.A. has not disputed about the age of the petitioners and submits that both are major. 9. Taking into consideration that both the petitioners are major and they were in love and now married on 16.09.2025, this Court is of the view that if there is any threat perception from the respondent no. 3 and 4 the State is under legal obligation to ensure the safety of the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar to assess the threat perception if any and if he comes to the conclusion that there is any threat perception to the petitioners, he shall take appropriate steps. Simultaneously the S.H.O. concerned shall call upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and advise them not to take the law in their hands. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 10.04.2026 Nahid