IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17295 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. AJMAL.M.A,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.ALIYAR, RESIDING AT MANAKANDATHIL HOUSE,RANDAAR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KAMILA NISAM,AGED 21 YEARS,D/O.LATE NISAM,MADATHODATH HOUSE,RANDAAR KARA.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,ERNAKULAM RURAL,OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA,OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, MUVATTUPUZHA.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUVATTUPUZHA MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. MUHAMMED NOOH,PAROLIL HOUSE,RANDAAR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. MUSTHAFFA @ MUTHU,MADATHODATHU HOUSE, RANDAAR.P.O,MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. NIYAS.P.NOOH,PAROLIL HOUSE,RANDAAR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6 & R7 ADVS. SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SRI.K.H.ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.1295/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE IST PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 24.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WP(C) No.17295 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 4th day of July 2011 Judgment Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioners, who describe themselves as adults and who are desirous of getting married, seeking police protection to their lives and also for solemnization of their marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, by approaching the Registrar of Marriages at Muvattupuzha. It is alleged in the petition that the idea of the petitioners of getting married is opposed to by respondents 5 to 7, who are the second petitioner's paternal uncles, on the ground that the second petitioner is a B.Tech. holder and the first petitioner being a person, who does not have formal education, will not be a proper match for the second petitioner. It is alleged that respondents 5 to 7 are threatening the petitioners against WP(C) 17295/11 2 the proposed marriage and also against their living together after the marriage, as man and wife. 2. It was submitted on behalf of Adv.C.A.Majeed, appearing on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 that the 5th respondent is not in India and the accusations levelled against him are without any basis. As regards the accusations against respondents 6 and 7, the learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by those respondents, which reads as follows : “6. It is most humbly submitted that the intention of the first petitioner is to grab the property of the 2nd petitioner. To the information of these respondents, 1st petitioner has not completed his S.S.L.C. and has no employment of his own to look after the 2nd respondent. The other averments regarding objection for nikah and threat to the petitioners are cooked up to suit to this petition. These respondents have no objection towards the petitioners in getting married. This writ petition itself is to overcome his intention to cheat the 2nd petitioner and her family with mala fides.” WP(C) 17295/11 3 The learned counsel submitted that respondents 6 and 7 will not raise any objection or cause any obstruction to the marriage between the petitioners. He submitted that 60 cents of land with a building thereon, has been given to the second petitioner under a family settlement and the second petitioner's mother and grandmother are presently residing along with the second petitioner. The learned counsel requests that the petitioners should be directed to permit the mother and grandmother of the second petitioner to live in the above said property, even after the marriage between the petitioners. 3. Shri.Joice George, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have absolutely no objection in the mother and the grandmother of the second petitioner, continuing to reside in the building, which is allotted to the second petitioner, in the family settlement. He only requests that the petitioners also should be permitted to reside along with them. WP(C) 17295/11 4 4. We record the submission made by Shri.Joice George, learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners will not raise any objection or cause any obstruction in the matter of Smt.Selma and Smt.Fathima, the mother and the grandmother respectively of the second petitioner, continuing to reside in the property, which is allotted to the second petitioner in the family settlement. We also record the averments in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7, which we have already quoted above. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition without specifically granting the reliefs sought for in the petition. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WP(C) 17295/11 5 WP(C) 17295/11 6