RUKSAR MALIK Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 has been produced from the Nari Niketan. Her father/R-3 is present in the Court, and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. He does not have a counsel. He seeks appointment of one. Accordingly, at request, Ms. Anu Narula, Advocate, present in the Court, is appointed as his counsel for the day. She states upon instructions that respondent No. 3 has reconciled to the marriage of the petitioners, and states that since he himself would be concerned about the safety and security of his daughter, there could be no threat to her from him. However, since the marriage was done without intimation to them, her extended family, including her siblings, are peeved. The girl's mother/respondent No. 4 is not present in the court today. She is reported to have moved away from her house last evening with her six year old son, perhaps, she too apprehends some element of threat from her sons.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 has been asked whether she would like to go to her father or with her husband to her matrimonial home at District Rampur, U.P., upon which she answers in affirmative for the latter option. The father of petitioner No. 2 Mr. Shareef Ahmed is present in the Court, and has been identified by the Investigating Officer. He states that he accepts and welcomes the marriage of the petitioners and would escort the young couple with absolute dignity and indeed with much fanfare to his home and would accord them due paternal care and affection. He is represented by the learned Amicus Curiae.

(3.) After interaction with Mr. Shareef Ahmed, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that indeed the said father-in-law of petitioner No. 1 says that he shall accommodate the young couple in his home at Azim Nagar, Distt. Rampur, U.P, and shall treat petitioner No. 1 like his own daughter and would expect that the same affection and care shall be showered upon her by his entire family.