IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6532 of 2008 Between: 1 Addanki Siri Bindu W/o.Ashur Raju Anurag Engineering College Kodada, Nalgonda District 2 Addanki Ashur Raju S/o.Ramaswamy R/o.3rd Ward, Avanigadda, Krishna District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Krishna District Machilipatnam, Krishna District 2 The S.H.O., Avanigadda Police Station, Krishna District 3 Uppalapati Satish Kumar S/o.Bhuganga Rao R/o.Vinayaka Residency,S.F.I. Siddardha Engineering College, Vijayawada,Krishna District 4 Addanki Rama Swamy S/o.Narasimha Rao R/o.3rd Ward, Avanigadda,Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.V.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide protection to the petitioners to enable them to lead happy marital life and to continue the education of petitioner No.1. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners pleaded that they married having fallen in love with each other against the will of respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 21.03.2008 at Aryasamajam, Maharishi Dayananda Marg, Hyderabad. The petitioners apprehend that respondent Nos.3 and 4 may approach respondent Nos.1 and 2 and bring influence on them to cause injury to the petitioners and ensure that they are separated. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I am of the view that the writ petition is filed on pure apprehension, without there being any material. The petitioners failed to substantiate their allegation that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have threatened them. No specific instances have been given in this regard. If the petitioners feel threatened by respondent Nos.3 and 4, they are at liberty to approach either the concerned Police or the jurisdictional Magistrate against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8527 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 1st APRIL, 2008 kvni