IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 453 of 2010 Smt. Rukaiya and another …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents no. 1 and 2 to safeguard the life and liberty of the petitioners and further direct the respondent nos. 3 to 9 not to interfere in the married life of the petitioners. 2- Heard Sri Manish Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for respondents no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. 3- As per the petition, both the petitioners are major and they got married of their own will as per Muslim rites. Respondent no. 3, who is the father of petitioner no. 1, is against this marriage and is seriously annoyed with the petitioners. Hence, respondent no. 3 in connivance with respondent no. 4 to 9, who are his relatives, are harassing the petitioners and creating trouble in their married life. Hence, the writ petition. 4- Having considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view 2 that no ground for issuing any writ in the nature of mandamus is available at this stage. However, we direct that if the petitioners make any representation before respondent no. 1 i.e. S.S.P., Haridwar for providing any police protection to them, respondent no. 1 i.e. S.S.P., Haridwar after assessing the entire situation at the spot, shall do needful in the case. 5- With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 15-06-2010 SP