IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13769 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. NIJA ANN THOMAS, D/O THOMAS JOHN, AGED 20, RESIDING AT PALANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, N.G.O. QUARTERS, THRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNAUR TALUK. 2. NISHA ANN THOMAS, D/O THOMAN JOHN, AGED 20, RESIDING AT PALANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, N.G.O. QUARTERS, THRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNAUR TALUK. 3. THOMAS JOHN, S/O THOMAS, AGED 50, RESIDING AT PALANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, N.G.O. QUARTERS, THRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNAUR TALUK. 4. USHA THOMAS, W/O THOMAS JOHN, AGED 45, RESIDING AT PALANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE, N.G.O. QUARTERS, THRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNAUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.JIJO THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD P.O. 2. A.SHANMUGHAM, S/O A.PALANI, AGED 26, RESIDING AT TYPE II/25, N.P.O.L. QUARTERS, NGO QUARTERS, THRIKKAKARA P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SANIL KUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.13769/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT REGISTERED ON 24.10.2008 BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 12.5.2009 EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.5.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(1) COPIES OF LETTERS WRITTEN BY THE FIRST PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(2) LETTER ISSUED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE MANAGER OF CHOTTANIKKARA DEVASWOM DATED 21.5.2009 EXT.R2(3) SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS. EXT.R2(4) TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT REPORT DATED 24.2.2009 ISSUED BY DR.NEETHI B NAIR IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.R2(5) SONOGRAPHIC REPORT ISSUED BY DR.P.MAHESH DATED 26.2.2009 IN THE NAME OF FIRST PETITIONER. //true copy// P.A. To Judge. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13769 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is a petition seeking police protection. Petitioners 1 and 2 are twin sisters and petitioners 3 and 4 are their parents. It is alleged that first petitioner was enticed by the second respondent, she was harassed and an agreement for marriage was executed by obtaining her consent, but there was no legal marriage. It is also submitted that the second respondent is threatening the petitioners to do away with their life. Petitioners have preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the police, and as there is no action, this writ petition is filed. 2. In order to find out the truth or otherwise, we called the parties. Petitioners 1 and 2 and second respondent are W.P.(C) No.13769 of 2009 2 present. From the interaction, we understood that first petitioner had lived with second respondent and now she does not want to go with him. However, there is no room for filing a police protection matter. So also the second petitioner says that it is only to support the first petitioner that she joined as party to this proceedings. As such, we find no threat to life as alleged. The second respondent, on interaction, submits that he has also been threatened, but there is nothing to support such an allegation. 3. Since the first petitioner does not want to live with the second respondent, there is no room for any settlement in this matter. It is up to them to decide their course of action. However, under the guise of such previous contract between the first petitioner and the second respondent, there cannot be any threat against each other. Therefore, in case of any such threat alleged by either of the parties, the police will enquire into the matter and if satisfied that there is a real threat, they will extend W.P.(C) No.13769 of 2009 3 necessary protection. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.