Aswathy R & Ali Akber P.A. v. Director General of Police (Law and Order), Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram; Superintendent of Police, Thrissur; Sub Inspector of Police, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva West; N. Premachandran; Abdul Jabbar P.A.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938 WP(C).No. 5683 of 2017 (I) ------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- ## 1. ASWATHY R - AGED 25, D/O. N.PREMACHANDRAN, 'USHAS', HOUSE NO. 70, 5TH CROSS ROAD, UDAYA NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003 2. ALI AKBER P.A, AGED 27, S/O. ABDUL JABBAR P.A, PALLATH HOUSE, ALANGAD P.O, KOTTAPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683511. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.A.A.SHIBI SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR - 680001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA WEST -683101. 5. N. PREMACHANDRAN, "USHAS', HOUSE NO.70, 5TH CROSS ROAD, UDAYA NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR PIN - 680 003. WP(C).No. 5683 of 2017 (I) -2- ## 6. ABDUL JABBAR P.A PALLATH HOUSE, ALANGAD P.O, KOTTAPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN - 683511. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## WP(C).No. 5683 of 2017 (I) ------------------------------ ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18TH FEBRUARY, 2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. ----------------------- ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.** ------------------------------------------------ W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st ] day of February, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Antony Dominic, J.** 1. aSecond petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and the first petitioner is also undergoing the course which is at its final stages. It is stated that both of them have attained majority. According to the petitioners, they fell in love about six years back and have decided to marry and to live together. The pleadings are to the effect that the proposal was not acceptable to the parents of the first petitioner and that though the second petitioner's parents were initially agreeable, they too have, on account of the disagreement of the first petitioner's parents, retracted from the consent given. As a result, the petitioners have left their parental homes and are residing elsewhere. They have also produced W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 -2- as Ext.P2, the notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriages Act, given by them. 2. In this writ petition, they allege that since their decision to get married was not acceptable to the parents of both the petitioners, they apprehend that their parents, among whom respondents 5 and 6 are the fathers of the petitioners, would file complaints before the police making false allegations and that acting upon such complaints, they would be harassed and would be prevented from getting married and live together. It is in this background that the writ petition is filed, with the prayer to direct the official respondents to afford protection to them to stay together at the place of their choice and to get married under the Special Marriages Act. There is a further prayer to direct respondents 1 to 4 not to harass the petitioners on the false complaints of respondents 5 and 6. W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 -3- 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on judgments of the Apex Court in **Bhagwati v. State of U.P. [(1976) 3 SCC 234]** , **Lata Singh v. State of U.P. [(2006) 5 SCC 475]** and **Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2011) 6 SCC 396]** . 4. Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter, states that to his knowledge, neither of the respondents 5 and 6 have filed any petition before this Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to trace out either of the petitioners. It is also stated that the Thrissur West Police Station have received a copy of Ext.P1 complaint and that thereupon they made enquiries in the house of the first petitioner which was found to be locked for the last three days. It is further stated that, the fourth respondent also had received a copy of Ext.P1 from the -4- W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 petitioners and that thereupon he went to the house of the second petitioner and met the sixth respondent, the father. It is stated that the sixth respondent has told the Sub Inspector of Police that he has no objection whatsoever in the relationship of his son with the first petitioner. 5. A writ petition for police protection will be entertained by this Court when there is a threat to the fundamental rights of the citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Insofar as this case is concerned, a reading of pleadings in the writ petition itself show that, it is entirely based on the apprehensions of the petitioners that this writ petition is filed. They have not pointed out any concrete incident or threat justifying the prayer. Therefore, as of now, we are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out any case for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction and to grant an order of police protection as -5- W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 sought for in this writ petition. 6. Insofar as the judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, **Gian Devi** 's case, is a case of writ of habeas corpus and insofar as **Lata Singh** 's case is concerned, the Supreme Court has deprecated caste system prevailing in the country. Insofar as the case of **Bhagwan Dass** 's case is concerned, a reading of the judgment would show that the Court was dealing with a situation of “honour killing” that is prevailing in some of the north Indian States in the country. According to us, the factual situation of this writ petition does not make the principles laid down in many of the judgments, applicable to this case. Therefore, we are not persuaded to think that these judgments are of any use to the case on hand. 7. Be that as it may, like any other citizen, the W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 -6- petitioners are also entitled to the protection from illegalities. Therefore, we clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners seeking police assistance in case they make out any cognizable offence against the party respondents. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE** Sd/- **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE W. P. (C) No.5683 of 2017 -7-