IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2696 of 2011(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JEETHU JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. C.J.IYPE, RESIDING AT CHERUKATTU HOUSE, AVOLI POST, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686661 2. SHNIJU GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, RESIDING AT MALAYIL HOUSE, KURAVILANGADU POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 001. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C. M. KAMAPPU. ADV. SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM FOR R2 SRI.R.PREMCHAND FOR R2 R2I.GEORGE BRISTON FOR R2 SMT.C.A.RAKHI ANTONY FOR R2 SMT.C.A.SEENA FOR R2 SRI.V.P.PRASANTH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011 ALONG WITH WPCR NO. 52 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.2696 OF 2011 J PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 28.11.2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24.1.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS; NIL. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO. 2696 OF 2011 J & W.P.(CRL).NO.52 OF 2011 S ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th February, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. These Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. W.P.(C).No.2696/2011 is filed by the wife of the second respondent therein seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to render police protection to the lives of the petitioner, her parents and elder sister from the threat of the second respondent and his men. 3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner, the wife, is as follows: She is the younger daughter of her parents. She was enticed to a love affair with the second respondent which was culminated in the conduct of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 2 They have never cohabited as husband and wife. Petitioner's only sister is elder to her and her marriage was delayed on account of cardiac complaints and prolonged treatment of her father. Ext.P1 is purported to be the medical records. After registration of marriage, the second respondent started visiting the petitioner at her School and exerted pressure on her to intimate her parents to get the marriage solemnized as per customary rites. The second respondent on several occasions made it clear that he was more interested in the petitioner's share in her family property and hence he insisted the petitioner to get the consent of her parents for their marriage. There are various other allegations against the second respondent. Petitioner apprehends threat to her life and also to the lives of other members of her family. Complaint is filed and hence this Writ Petition. 4. While this matter was pending, the second respondent husband filed W.P.(C). No.52/2011 to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking production of his wife. In short, the substance of WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 3 the allegation is of illegal detention by respondents 4 and 5 who are none other than the father of the petitioner's wife and her elder sister. In the Writ Petition itself it is stated that a Writ for police protection is pending. It is also stated that it is understood from the Writ Petition that the wife was forced to file a divorce petition before the Family Court, Ernakulam. 5. When this matter came up, we put it to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2696/2011 as to whether the alleged detenu could be produced. Learned counsel stated that the alleged detenu will be present before this Court. 6. Today, the alleged detenu who is the petitioner in the Writ Petition for police protection was present. So was, the petitioner who sought Writ of Habeas Corpus. We interacted with them. We also interacted with the father of the alleged detenu. 7. The alleged detenu would submit that she is not under any illegal detention and she has filed the Writ Petition seeking police protection and also the petition seeking divorce. In view of the WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 4 said circumstances, we see no reason why we should entertain the petition seeking Habeas Corpus. Without prejudice to the rights of the parties, we dismiss W.P.(Crl). No.52/2011. 8. As far as W.P.(C). No.2696/2011 is concerned, learned counsel for the second respondent/husband would submit that the second respondent undertakes that he will not make any threat to the petitioner, her father and elder sister. We record the said undertaking and close the Writ Petition. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 5