IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2696 of 2011(J)
1. JEETHU JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SHNIJU GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
For Respondent :SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :08/02/2011
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH &
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 2696 OF 2011 J
& W.P.(CRL).NO.52 OF 2011 S
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th February, 2011
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
These Writ Petitions being connected, they are disposed of by
this common Judgment.
2. W.P.(C).No.2696/2011 is filed by the wife of the second
respondent therein seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first
respondent to render police protection to the lives of the petitioner,
her parents and elder sister from the threat of the second
respondent and his men.
3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner, the wife, is as
follows:
She is the younger daughter of her parents. She was enticed
to a love affair with the second respondent which was culminated
in the conduct of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 2
They have never cohabited as husband and wife. Petitioner’s only
sister is elder to her and her marriage was delayed on account of
cardiac complaints and prolonged treatment of her father. Ext.P1
is purported to be the medical records. After registration of
marriage, the second respondent started visiting the petitioner at
her School and exerted pressure on her to intimate her parents to
get the marriage solemnized as per customary rites. The second
respondent on several occasions made it clear that he was more
interested in the petitioner’s share in her family property and hence
he insisted the petitioner to get the consent of her parents for their
marriage. There are various other allegations against the second
respondent. Petitioner apprehends threat to her life and also to the
lives of other members of her family. Complaint is filed and hence
this Writ Petition.
4. While this matter was pending, the second respondent
husband filed W.P.(C). No.52/2011 to issue a Writ of Habeas
Corpus seeking production of his wife. In short, the substance of
WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 3
the allegation is of illegal detention by respondents 4 and 5 who
are none other than the father of the petitioner’s wife and her elder
sister. In the Writ Petition itself it is stated that a Writ for police
protection is pending. It is also stated that it is understood from the
Writ Petition that the wife was forced to file a divorce petition
before the Family Court, Ernakulam.
5. When this matter came up, we put it to the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2696/2011 as
to whether the alleged detenu could be produced. Learned counsel
stated that the alleged detenu will be present before this Court.
6. Today, the alleged detenu who is the petitioner in the Writ
Petition for police protection was present. So was, the petitioner
who sought Writ of Habeas Corpus. We interacted with them. We
also interacted with the father of the alleged detenu.
7. The alleged detenu would submit that she is not under any
illegal detention and she has filed the Writ Petition seeking police
protection and also the petition seeking divorce. In view of the
WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 4
said circumstances, we see no reason why we should entertain the
petition seeking Habeas Corpus. Without prejudice to the rights of
the parties, we dismiss W.P.(Crl). No.52/2011.
8. As far as W.P.(C). No.2696/2011 is concerned, learned
counsel for the second respondent/husband would submit that the
second respondent undertakes that he will not make any threat to
the petitioner, her father and elder sister. We record the said
undertaking and close the Writ Petition.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
WPC.2696 & WPCRL.52/2011 5