IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3555 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.SASIDHARAN, MUTHAPPA NIVAS, KANTRAMKANI, MANDROTHURUTHU.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE KUNDARA CIRCLE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 4. SHAJI, SON OF PURUSHOTHAMAN, SHAJI BHAVANAM, PATTANTHURUTHU, MANDROTHURUTHU.P.O, KOLLAM. 5. NANAPPAN, SON OF KUNJUPILLAI, RESIDING AT KALALAYAM, KANTRAMKANI, MANDROTHURUTHU.P.O, KOLLAM. 6. SATHEESHAN, SON OF SADASIVAN, MANGALATHU VEEDU, KANTRAMKANI, MANDROTHURUTHU.P.O, KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3555 of 2010(T) APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1..A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 1.7.2005 IN WPC NO.19732/2005 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P2..A TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION LETTER OF PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER DEEPTHI DATED 11.2.2010. EXT.P3..A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT WITH COPIES TO THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3555 of 2010-T ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner and his wife are retired Government employees. The case of the petitioner is that they are in deep financial crisis. Allegations are made against respondents 4 to 6. The case of the petitioner ultimately is that the marriage of the petitioner's daughter is fixed on 11.2.2010. Petitioner apprehends that respondents 4 to 6 may disrupt the marriage and he seeks protection. 2. Though served, there is no appearance for respondents 4 to 6. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Whatever may be the grievance which respondents 4 to 6 may have against the petitioner, they cannot obstruct the marriage of the daughter of the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to get an order to provide adequate and effective protection for the smooth WPC No.3555/2010 -2- conduct of his daughter's marriage. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 to 3 to afford adequate and effective police protection for the smooth conduct of the marriage of the petitioner's daughter due to be solemnized as per Ext.P2 invitation letter against the threat of violence from respondents 4 to 6 and their men. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS