TANU vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A. — WPCRL/1047/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 04th June 2026.
CNR: UKHC010097892026
Filing Number
WPCRL/4681/2026
Filing Date
04-06-2026
Registration No
WPCRL/1047/2026
Registration Date
04-06-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
CRIMINAL WRIT FOR PROTECTION ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
04th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TANU
Adv. RAKSHIT JOSHI,SWALEHA HUSSAIN,SWALEHA HUSSAIN, ,SWALEHA HUSSAIN
TARUN KUMAR
Respondent(s)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - G.A.
S.H.O.
Adv. G.A.
SUKHPAL
SMT. NEETA
AKASH
Hearing History
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra
FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | FRESH CASES FOR ADMISSION -3 |
Orders
Case Summary: WPCRL 1047/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand granted protection to two major petitioners (Tanu, born 10.04.2004, and Tarun Kumar, born 01.01.2006) who sought safeguards to marry each other freely, as they faced threats and intimidation from the petitioner no.1's family members. The court directed the local police station to assess any threat to their life and liberty, provide necessary protection if threats exist, and summon opposing family members to counsel them against harassment or interference with the petitioners' relationship and proposed marriage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: WPCRL 1047/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand granted protection to two major petitioners (Tanu, born 10.04.2004, and Tarun Kumar, born 01.01.2006) who sought safeguards to marry each other freely, as they faced threats and intimidation from the petitioner no.1's family members. The court directed the local police station to assess any threat to their life and liberty, provide necessary protection if threats exist, and summon opposing family members to counsel them against harassment or interference with the petitioners' relationship and proposed marriage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts