IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 13486 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. JOSEPH P.J., S/O JOSEPH, AGED 28 YEARS, PEZHUKATTIL HOUSE, 5/478, SHOLAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ATTAPPADI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JEMSHEENA P.K., D/O KUNHABDULLA, AGED 22 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT PEZHUKATTIL HOUSE, 5/478,SHOLAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ATTAPPADI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AGALI POLICE STATION, ATTAPPADI VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KUNHABDULLA, PALOLIKUNNI HOUSE, 672A, NARIPPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NADAPURAM VIA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 507. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.13486/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONERS. P2 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR RECEIPT OF MONEY DATED 30/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.13486 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioners have come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to the first respondent to afford protection for the life and person of the petitioners. Petitioners, a young man and woman aged 28 years and 22 years, belonging to different religions have decided to get married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. The second respondent, according to the petitioners, was a religious bigot who was opposed to the idea of the petitioners get married. In these circumstances, they apprehended danger to their life and person from the second respondent. Accordingly, they came to this Court with this petition. 2. This matter came up for hearing on 20.4.2010. The case was admitted and posted to 27.4.2010. The following interim order was passed by the Bench which dealt with the matter. WPC No.13486 of 2010 2 “In the meanwhile, the first respondent shall see that no harm would come to the person of the petitioners.” 3. When the matter came up for hearing on 27.4.2010, after service of notice on the respondent, the following order was passed. “In the meanwhile, the first respondent shall ensure that no harm is caused to the person of the petitioner by the second respondent.” The said interim order has been extended from time to time. 4. The second respondent though served has not chosen to enter appearance. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have now got married. Still, it is stated that there is an apprehension of danger to themselves by the petitioners. The interim order was extended till 20.5.2010. Thereafter, the order has not been extended. We do not in these circumstances find any merit in the assertion regarding continued perception of danger to the person of the petitioners. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat WPC No.13486 of 2010 3 against the life or person of the petitioners. If there be any such threat, the petitioners shall be at liberty to complain to the first respondent who shall thereupon make appropriate arrangements to afford protection to the petitioners, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. In the sequence of events in this case to which we have adverted to, we are satisfied that no specific directions under Article 226 need now be issued. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. 8. This petition is, in these circumstances, allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/