IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10795 of 2011(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ROSHON GEORGE, S/O.E.P.GEORGE, T.C.55/2068, VARNAM, NETHANI ROAD, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM-18. 2. BHAGYA LEKSHMI, D/O.NARAYANAN POTTY, -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION OFFICE, VAZHUTHACADU, TRIVANDRUM – 695001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE STATION KARAMANA, TRIVANDRUM. 3. NARAYANAN POTTI, SRI NIVAS, T.C.28/1682 FORT PAZHAVANGADI, TRIVANDRUM - 695 023. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 10795 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : EXTRACT OF MARRIAGE REGISTER OF PATTARATHU CHAMMUNDI TEMPLE. EXT.P2 : COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 10795 OF 2011 Y ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioners are two young persons aged 21 and 18 years belonging to two different religions. They have fallen in love. They have decided to get married. The third respondent is the father of the second petitioner girl. The third respondent does not approve the relationship between petitioners 1 and 2. He is allegedly threatening the life and person of the petitioners. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come before this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to them. 2. Third respondent has entered appearance. Counsel for third respondent submits that this petition is totally unnecessary. Allegations raised are totally false. It is a cruel joke on the helpless third respondent. The second petitioner is the only child of the third respondent. She is aged only 18 years. Even going by Ext.P1 the date of birth of the second petitioner is only WPC 10795/2011 2 21-4-1992. There was an earlier complaint that during the minority of the second petitioner the first petitioner had caught hold of her hand. Police had called the first petitioner and his parents and warned against recurrence of any such conduct. But when the second petitioner crossed the age of 18 years the petitioners have chosen to elope leaving the helpless third respondent behind. 3. The learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the third respondent has accepted his fate. He has not chosen even to lodge a complaint before the police. He is accepting the inevitable circumstance and is permitting the petitioners to live as they please. The third respondent or his relatives have no intention to cause any harm or threat to the petitioners. This fact/undertaking may be recorded. No directions under Art.226 need be issued against the third respondent submits the learned counsel. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that in the perception of the police officials also there is no threat to the life or person of the WPC 10795/2011 3 petitioners from the third respondent. No directions under Art.226 are necessary. In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioners from the third respondent necessary action shall be taken by the police against the third respondent. This petition may in these circumstances be closed it is submitted. 5. To queries by us the learned counsel for the petitioners accepts that Ext.P1 may not constitute a perfectly legal marriage. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already, by way of abundant caution, lodged notice for solemnisation/registration of their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We find it safe to accept the submission/undertaking of the third respondent through his counsel. We find it safe to accept the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that necessary steps shall be taken if there be any threat to the life and person of the petitioners from the third respondent. It is not necessary to issue any specific directions we are satisfied. WPC 10795/2011 4 7. Accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned Govt. Pleader this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 10795/2011 5