IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7437 of 2008 Between: 1 Rubeena Naaz, W/o. MOhd. Tasleem Khan,. R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 Mohd. Taslim Khan, S/o. Mohd. Sultan Khan, R/o. Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, Having office at S.P. Office, Warangal. 2 Mohd. Abid Ali, S/o. Sri Afsar Ali, R/O. Eidgah Road, Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda, District Warangal. 3 Syed Khaja Ikdramuddin, S/o. syed Khaja Ghouse Mohiuddin, IN P.S. Shameempet, Warangal. 4 Syed Khaja Nizamuddin, S/o. Syed Khaj Ghouse Mohiuddin, in P.S. Mamnoor Camp, Warangal. 5 Khaja Pasha, S/o.Not Known to the Petitioner, R/o. Papiahpet Chaman, Warangal. 6 The Station House Officer, P.S. Subedari, Having Office at Police Station Subedari, Warangal. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.MOHD.MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 6: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare that the petitioners have got every right of privacy and personal liberty as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Indian Majority Act. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their privacy and personal liberty by separating them from each other. Heard Sri Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. In their affidavit, the petitioners claimed that they fell in love and married against the wishes of the parents of petitioner No.1; that by deceitful means, respondent No.2 obtained the signatures of petitioner No.1 on blank papers and filed a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC against petitioner No.2 in the name of petitioner No.1 and forced petitioner No.2 to pronounce talaq against petitioner No.1. It is stated that subsequently, the petitioners remarried and they now apprehend that respondent No.2, who is the father of petitioner No.1, and respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the maternal uncles working under respondent No.1, are likely to cause separation of the petitioners by resorting to illegal methods. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the reason that except making allegations, the petitioners failed to produce any evidence in support thereof. The petitioners failed to substantiate their allegations that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are seeking to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners or that they are seeking to separate the petitioners from each other. So far, the petitioners have not given any complaint to the police or filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the event respondent Nos.2 to 4 act in the manner which is prejudicial to the petitioners’ interests, the petitioners shall be free to approach the appropriate Court of law both for civil and criminal actions against them. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.9781 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4th APRIL, 2008 kvni