What did the Uttarakhand High Court rule in Vanshika Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand?

The Uttarakhand High Court granted protection to a couple facing threats from family members despite objections that the male petitioner had not attained 21 years of age at the time of marriage. The Court directed the police to assess the threat and provide protection if necessary.

Why did the couple approach the Uttarakhand High Court?

The couple approached the High Court seeking police protection after alleging that the family members of petitioner no. 1 opposed their marriage and had threatened to kill both petitioners.

What was the age of the couple at the time of marriage?

According to the petition, petitioner no. 1 was 19 years and 6 months old, while petitioner no. 2 was 20 years old when they solemnized their marriage on March 24, 2026.

Did the Uttarakhand High Court declare the marriage valid?

No. The High Court did not decide the validity of the marriage. It only considered the request for police protection in view of the alleged threats to the petitioners and the counsellor's report.

What did the counsellor's report state?

The counsellor's report stated that petitioner no. 1 was not willing to return to her parents and was happy in the company of petitioner no. 2.

What directions were issued to the police?

The High Court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) to assess whether there was any threat to the life and limb of the petitioners and provide necessary protection if such a threat existed. The SHO was also directed to counsel the private respondents and other persons opposing the marriage in accordance with law.

The case was heard by Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court.

What is the case title and case number?

The case is titled 'Vanshika Tomar and Another v. State of Uttarakhand' and bears Case No. WPCRL/566/2026.

Uttarakhand High Court Grants Protection to Couple Despite Husband Being Below 21 at Time of Marriage

Q: Which Supreme Court judgment did the Uttarakhand High Court rely on?

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, while granting protection to the petitioners.

Laksh
Jul 3
3 min read

"The petitioner no. 1 is not ready to go with her parents and she is happy with the company of the petitioner no. 2."

Uttarakhand High Court Grants Protection to Couple Despite Husband Being Below 21 at Time of Marriage

Uttarakhand High Court Protects Couple Facing Threats From Family

In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court granted protection to a young couple despite objections that the male petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years at the time of their marriage.

Justice Alok Mahra held that the couple had established a case for police protection after considering the counsellor's report and relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475.

The Court directed the concerned police authorities to assess any threat to the couple's life and provide protection if necessary.

Couple Approaches High Court Seeking Police Protection

The petition was filed seeking directions to the police authorities to protect the petitioners from the private respondents and their associates.

According to the petition, the couple solemnized their marriage on March 24, 2026.

The petitioners informed the Court that:

Petitioner No. 1 was 19 years and 6 months old at the time of marriage, as reflected in her matriculation certificate.
Petitioner No. 2 was 20 years old.

The couple alleged that the family members of petitioner no. 1 opposed their marriage and had been threatening to kill both of them, creating a serious apprehension regarding their safety.

Counsellor's Report Favoured the Couple

Earlier in the proceedings, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court directed both parties to appear before a counsellor.

After interacting with the parties, the counsellor submitted a report stating that:

Petitioner no. 1 was not willing to return to her parents.
She was happy in the company of petitioner no. 2.

The High Court considered this report while deciding the petition.

Family Challenged the Validity of the Marriage

The private respondents argued that the marriage was not valid because petitioner no. 2 had not completed 21 years of age, the minimum age prescribed for a groom under existing law.

On the other hand, the petitioners contended that even if petitioner no. 2 had not attained 21 years at the time of marriage, the marriage could, at most, be voidable, and this issue should not deprive them of protection when they were facing threats to their lives.

Uttarakhand High Court Relies on Supreme Court's Lata Singh Judgment

Justice Alok Mahra observed that the counsellor's report clearly showed that petitioner no. 1 wished to remain with petitioner no. 2.

The Court observed:

"Be that as it may, the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 08.05.2026 directed the parties to appear before the counsellor. The parties appeared before the counsellor and the report submitted by the counsellor would indicate that the petitioner no. 1 is not ready to go with her parents and she is happy with the company of the petitioner no. 2."

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Court concluded that the petitioners had made out a case for grant of protection.

High Court Orders Police to Assess Threat and Provide Protection

Allowing the petition, the Court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station to:

Assess whether there is any threat to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
Provide necessary police protection if such a threat is found.

The Court also directed the SHO to summon the private respondents and any other persons opposing the marriage and counsel them in accordance with law.

Key Observations of the Court

The High Court emphasized that:

The counsellor's report indicated that the woman wished to stay with her husband.
The petitioners had established a genuine apprehension regarding threats to their safety.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. supported granting protection in such circumstances.

Case Details

Case Title: Vanshika Tomar and Another v. State of Uttarakhand

Case Number: WPCRL/566/2026

Court: Uttarakhand High Court

Judge: Justice Alok Mahra

The PRESS Pad