IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38803 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PHILIP V.J., VSSC QUARTERS NO.7/16, VSSC HOUSING COLONY, PALLITHURA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT 'SREE SAI', OPPOSITE SURESH ENGIEERING WORKS, MENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TREESA PHILIP, W/O.PHILIP V.J., OF DO. DO. 3. SHYNI PHILIP, D/O.PHILIP V.J., OF DO. DO. 4. JOHNSON PHILIP, AGED 27, S/O.PHILIP V.J., OF DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.T.T.RAKESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UDAYAN, UDAYA BUILDINGS, BYE PASS JUNCTION, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38803 of 2010(A) - 2 - APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF EDUFOX. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF MS.LAKSHMI PRIYA. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENDED MARRIAGE DATED 17.12.2010 AT CHALAI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 27.12.2010. /TRUE COPY/ R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.38803 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioners have come to this Court with this petition seeking police protection against violent, culpable and contumacious acts on the part of the 2nd respondent. The petitioners are parents, daughter and son respectively. The 4th petitioner is stated to be in love with the daughter of the 2nd respondent. The 4th petitioner is aged 27 years and the daughter of the 2nd respondent is said to be aged just above 18 years. According to the petitioners, the 4th petitioner and the daughter of the 2nd respondent have decided to get married. They have already given notice under the Special Marriage Act to get their marriage solemnised and registered under the Special Marriage Act. On coming to know of this, the 2nd respondent, the father of the girl, is allegedly indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct against the petitioners. The petitioners pray that appropriate directions may be issued to the 1st respondent to afford protection to the petitioners. W.P(C) No.38803 of 2010 2 2. The 1st and 2nd respondents have entered appearance. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the daughter of the 2nd respondent had not willingly and voluntarily agreed to get married to the 4th petitioner. She was a student in an institution where the 4th petitioner was employed. According to the 2nd respondent, the 4th petitioner had exploited such relationship and had persuaded her to sign certain documents. She had subscribed her signature to the document without really comprehending the nature of the document. On coming to know of the nature of the document in which her signature was obtained she had already appeared before the Marriage Officer and had apprised him of the real position by filing a statement. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that she had informed the Marriage Officer that she does not want to get the marriage solemnised or registered. 3. The question before us is only whether the 2nd respondent is likely to indulge in any violent, culpable or contumacious conduct against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent makes a categoric assertion that he does not intend to indulge in any such culpable conduct against the petitioners. The W.P(C) No.38803 of 2010 3 petitioners should not in turn cause any difficulties to the 2nd respondent or his family. In these circumstances, it is submitted that no order of police protection is necessary against the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent submits that at the moment there is no specific instance of any contumacious or culpable conduct on the part of the 2nd respondent. If there is any such genuine complaint against the petitioners or the 2nd respondent, the aggrieved person shall be at liberty to complain to the 1st respondent; whereupon, the 1st respondent shall take necessary action, assures the learned Government Pleader. 5. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no specific direction for police protection is necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. We record the submission of the 2nd respondent that he does not intend to indulge in any contumacious and culpable conduct against the petitioners. We record the submission of petitioners 1 to 4 that they do not intend to indulge in any culpable conduct against the 2nd respondent. We further record the submission of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent that the W.P(C) No.38803 of 2010 4 needful shall be done if there is any genuine complaint from the petitioners or the 2nd respondent about such contumacious and culpable conduct against the other. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further directions are necessary. 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed recording the above submissions. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/