-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1681 OF 2008 Nazma Jamal Sakhani and another ..Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. A.R. Maurya, instructed by M/s. Global Juris, for the petitioners. Ms. Smita Gaidhani, AGP, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: JULY 30, 2008. P.C. The case of the petitioners is that at present petitioner No.1 is staying with petitioner No.2 and both of them are residing together on their own will. Petitioner No.1 is a married lady. She has not joined her husband as party respondent in this petition. Further grievance of the petitioner No.1 is that she is being ill-treated by her husband and her parents and that on this ground, inter alia, the following prayers have been made in this petition. “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that alleged marriage of the petitioner no.1 with offender No.3 is illegal and null and void; (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, commanding the Respondents to register the FIR against the offenders as per law; ( c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of -2- mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, commanding the Respondents to provide appropriate security to the petitioners at the cost of the respondent No.1.” 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the prayers made in this petition cannot be granted by this Court. We agree with the said submission. So far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, petitioner No.1 can take appropriate recourse to law for declaring her marriage as null and void. This Court in a writ petition cannot entertain such prayer. We accordingly give liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority or Court or any other forum in this behalf. 3. So far as prayer clause(b) is concerned, the petitioners can approach the concerned Magistrate by filing a complaint directly, in case the FIR is not entertained by the concerned Police Station. (4) As regards prayer clause (c ), it is for the State Government to consider the application preferred by the petitioners, if any, for police protection. It is for the State Government to decide as to whether the protection should be granted to the petitioners or not in view of the apprehension expressed by the petitioners in this behalf. The petitioners are, therefore, permitted to make representation in this behalf and the State Government may consider such application in accordance with law and pass -3- appropriate orders. 5. Subject to what is stated above, the petition is disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.