IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4594 of 2010(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARY JENI, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. MARY HELAN, KATTIKATTU HOUSE, PALLITHODE P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688584. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPUZHA, 2. S.I. OF POLICE,KUTHIYATHODU, ALAPUZHA. 3. DOMINIC RAJU, S/O. DEVASTHY, MANIACHIRA HOUSE, PALLITHODE P.O., WEST MANACODAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688584. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4594 OF 2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.2.2-10. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.4594 of 2010-Y ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i).to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Ist and 2nd respondents to provide adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner and her family members from the threat of the 3rd respondent. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the Ist and 2nd respondents to take appropriate steps in Exhibit P1 complaint.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:--Petitioner is residing with her mother. Petitioner is the wife of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is employed in Mumbai. It is stated that after one month from the date of marriage, the 3rd respondent returned to Mumbai for his business. It is further stated that after about one month the 3rd respondent came back to his home and that the behaviour of the 3rd respondent is changed. He is consuming alcohol and started harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally and demanded more dowry. Petitioner was WPC 4594/2010 -2- forced to leave the house of the 3rd respondent and started living with her mother, it is submitted. There is allegation of forceful trespass and threat to kill by the 3rd respondent. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the material allegations in the writ petition. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file reply affidavit, we heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 3rd respondent. The counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent has no intention to cause any threat. Recording the above submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent we dispose of the writ petition. We direct that as and when required by the petitioner, protection will be afforded by respondents 1 and 2 to the life of the petitioner, her mother and her child from any threat by the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS