IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7287 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Leela Damayanthi Devi W/o G. Trinadh Rao R/o Vissakoderu Palem, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 G. Trinadha Rao S/o G. Venkatanarayana R/o Vissakoderu Palem, Palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District. 3 The Station House Officer, Palakoderu 4 K.V. Rama Rao S/o K.Venkata Rao R/o Visakoderu palem, Palakoderu mandal, West Godavari District. 5 K.V.K. Bhuvaneswari W/o K. Venkata Rao r/o Visakoderu palem, palakoderu Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.AGASTYA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners, who claim to have married against the wishes of their parents, filed this Writ Petition claiming protection from the illegal threats of respondent Nos.4 and 5. They also sought for appropriate directions to respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere in their marital life. Heard Sri S.Agasthya Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. In their affidavit, the petitioners claimed that they got married in a temple in Karnataka State on 24-01-2008 against the wishes of their parents; that respondent Nos.4 and 5 (who are, evidently, the parents of petitioner No.1), bore grudge against petitioner No.2 and his family members and started harassing them. They further stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 prevailed on respondent No.3 to mete out harassment of the petitioners and the family members of petitioner No.2. Though the petitioners averred that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are against their marriage, no material is produced to substantiate their contention that the said respondents have been either threatening them or taking any steps, which would cause detriment to their interests. There is also no material to show that respondent No.3 is interfering with the disputes between the petitioners or their family members and respondent Nos.4 and 5. Except the ipse dixit of the petitioners, they failed to produce any material in support of their averments. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.9583 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd April, 2008 lur