SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 23891

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Mrs. Parul Jha – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Monica Mishra,Advocate General

ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking police protection as the petitioners who have solemnized marriage apprehend danger from the family members of petitioner no. 1. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are major and on their free will have solemnize marriage and petitioner no. 1 wants to live with the petitioner no.2 but they apprehend that respondent no. 4 who is father of petitioner no. 1 may institute complaint against the petitioner no. 2 and in wake of such complaint, further apprehend that the police may harass them.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate on advance copy submits that on mere apprehension protection order cannot be issued by this Court, as from the entire averments made in the Writ Petition only apprehensions have been raised that the family members of petitioner no.1 may cause harm to both of them. Thus, prays for dismissal of the present petition. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, prima facie this Court does not find any reason to allow the said petition and provide police protection to the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top