IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22079 of 2011(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SHAMSEENA M.A,AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED M.A,'JEELANI MANZIL', MULIAR P.O, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADHUR POLICE STATION, ADHUR, 671 543, KASARAGOD. 2. SAMEERA,W/O.MUHAMMED ASIAM T.K, 'T.K HOUSE', BOVIKANAM, ALOOR, MULIAR P.O, 671 542, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MUHAMMED ASLAM T.K, 'T.K HOUSE', BOVIKKANAM, ALOOR, MULIAR P.O, 671 542, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22079 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE UNDER THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS 1ST CHILD. EXT.P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS 2ND CHILD. EXT.P5:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17/07/11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.22079 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J This Writ Petition filed by a 20 year old girl said to be an Engineering student seeks the following reliefs:- 1.Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to the 1st respondent to afford sufficient protection to the petitioner from the respondents 2 and 3. 2.to declare that the 3rd respondent has got no authority to harass the petitioner, under the guise of a marriage mentioned in Ext.P1, as it is a void one. 3.to command the respondents 2 and 3 not to harass the petitioner on account of the marriage mentioned in Ext.P1 as it is void. 4.to declare that the marriage in Ext.P1 is void. 2. As regards the prayers 2 to 4 we notice that those prayers fall outside the jurisdiction which is allowed to us as per the roster presently fixed by the Honourable Chief W. P. C. No.22079 of 2011 -2- Justice. We feel that the petitioner may have to seek those reliefs elsewhere and not in this Court even. We leave open to the right of the petitioner to seek the above reliefs from other competent courts. The only relief which can concern us is relief No.1. 3. The allegation in the Writ Petition is that respondents 2 and 3 are the lawfully wedded wife and husband without knowing which marital bond the petitioner entered into Ext.P1. Those respondents are giving all sorts of trouble to the life of the petitioner and protection is sought from the police against such troubles, harassment and contumacious behaviour. On considering the Writ Petition, we directed the Government Pleader to get instructions from the first respondent, Sub Inspector of Police as to what action was taken on Ext.P5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P5 was enquired into and it was revealed that it is during the subsistence of a valid marriage between W. P. C. No.22079 of 2011 -3- respondents 2 and 3 that the petitioner entered into Ext.P1 so called marriage. The respondents 2 and 3 were specifically warned against causing any trouble or difficulty to the petitioner. At the moment, there is necessity to issue police protection directions in favour of the petitioner. 4. Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought a short adjournment so that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents can be settled amicably. We are not inclined to grant adjournment. As already indicated the only question which we are called upon to decide is whether it is necessary to issue any police protection direction. On the basis of the submissions made before us by the learned Government Pleader, we do not find any warrant for issuance of any directions immediately. At the same time, we dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent that if in future any complaint is received from the petitioner of any threat, W. P. C. No.22079 of 2011 -4- violence or illegal activity from respondents 2 and 3 or from anybody acting under them such complaint should be promptly enquired into and prompt action shall be taken on the basis of the facts revealed out in the enquiry so that the life of the petitioner is not endangered. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-