IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16052 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. ANOOP B., S/O.BHASKARAN T.C., AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT THACHANTODE HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O. K.M.JACOB, KURAVANKUDY HOUSE, VILANGU KARA, VILANGU P.O., 683 561. 2. KANNIGAROSHNI V., D/O.VADIVEL.S. & UMA MAHESWARY, AGED 19 YEARS, SHREE NITYANADARA ILLAM, DR.RADHAKRISHNA ROAD, TATABAD, COIMBATORE - 12 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O. K.M.JACOB, KURAVANKUDY HOUSE, VILANGU KARA, VILANGU P.O., 683 561. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA. 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, KUNNATHUNADU. 4. UMA MAHESWARY, W/O.VADIVEL.S., AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING AT SREE NITYANADARA ILLAM, DR.RADHAKRISHNA ROAD, TATABAD, COIMBATORE - 12. 5. SPARJAN KUMAR, IPS, COMMANDER OF POLICE CAMP, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R4 ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON 24.06.2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16052 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasn, J, This is a petition filed seeking police protection for the life of the petitioners. 2. Petitioners claimed that they got married on 5.6.2009 at Chottanikkara Devi Temple and have been residing together since then. The first petitioner was working at Tirupur in an organisation run by one Mr.K.M.Jacob. The petitioners gained acquaintance with each other at Tirupur. Petitioners would claim that the family of the second petitioner approved the relationship and they were cordial to them. Later on, the mother of the second petitioner changed her attitude. Petitioners would say that at the instance of the fifth respondent, the police are hunting for the petitioners and they apprehend that they may be taken to some police camp or station and they may be physically and mentally harassed and WPC.16052/2009. 2 tortured. The specific averment is that at the instance of the fifth respondent they are to be produced in Muttikulangara Police Camp, Palakkad. The petitioners would say that even though they complained to the police, no action has been taken by the police. They apprehend danger to their life and person and therefore the writ petition. 3. The party respondents, namely, the fourth and fifth respondents, have filed their counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, she denied the allegations of the petitioners and pointed out that the story is something else. The second petitioner is her sole child and she secured admission in Avinashlingam Home Science University for an integrated course. She was found missing from 2.6.2009 from Tirupur. The matter was immediately reported to the police and the police began search for her. She would say that she along with her husband was running a textile unit at Tirupur and the first petitioner was her employee. He was given absolute freedom and he misused the WPC.16052/2009. 3 same. He had enticed the second petitioner and eloped from Tirupur. Various other facts are also stated, which are not very relevant for the purpose. 4. It is pointed out by her that in her anxiety and anguish she sought the advise of the fifth respondent, who asked her to complain to the police. She would also point out that the second petitioner is only 18 years old and she is not mature enough to decide her future. In all probability, she was forced to marry even if there is any marriage as such. At any rate, she would say that she had done nothing to cause danger to the life of the petitioners. 5. In the counter affidavit of the fifth respondent, he points out that he has been unnecessarily dragged into the court and he had nothing to do with the incident. The family of the fourth respondent is known to him and when they came for his advise on the matter, he asked them to report to the police. WPC.16052/2009. 4 6. On going through the plea raised and the materials available before this court, there is nothing to indicate that the apprehension of the petitioners is justified. It is stated in the petition that petitioners got married on 5.6.2009. No materials were placed before this court even to doubt that the petitioners are being harassed or that there is any threat to their life. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this petition. In future, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the act of any person, they may approach the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievances. This order will not preclude the police from taking such steps as are necessary pursuant to any order issued from any court. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.