IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31179 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. MARYKUTTY VARGHESE, AGED 60, W/O.LATE M.K.VARGHESE, MANTHANATHU HOUSE, EZHUPURAM KARA, KADAYIRUPPU.P.O., KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH VARGHESE, S/O.LATE M.K.VARGHESE, AGED 36, MANTHANATHU HOUSE, EZHUPURAM KARA, KADAYIRUPPU.P.O., KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHENCURUZ POLICE STATION, PUTHENCURUZ, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. THOMAS, S/O.MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 58, ARTHUNGAL HOUSE, KUNNAKURUDY, AIRAPURAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 316. 4. ELDHOSE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 22, ARTHUNGAL HOUSE, KUNNAKURUDY, AIRAPURAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 316. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. R3 & R4 BY ADV. T.B.THANKAPPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 31179/2010 -2- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.10.2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3A. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR SENT TO THE JFCM COURT, KOLENCHERRY. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.31179 of 2010-V ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the Ist day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “ to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order d or a direction directing the Ist and 2nd respondents to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the petitioners from the hands of the 3rd and 4th respondents and their men.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. First petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. Second petitioner married the daughter of the 3rd respondent. Now, the 3rd and 4th respondents are using criminal force and various tactics against the petitioners to obtain the consent of the 2nd petitioner for a joint divorce petition. They have given time upto 30.10.2010 for signing the joint divorce petition. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents 3 and 4. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. WPC No.31179 of 2010 -2- On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 would submit that respondents 3 and 4 want to see the marriage between the 2nd petitioner and the daughter of the 3rd respondent continues to exist. We record the undertaking given on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 that respondents 3 and 4 will not pressurise the petitioners to agree for a divorce between the 2nd petitioner and the daughter of the 3rd respondent and close the writ petition. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE. MS