IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13378 of 2010(V)
1. SIJO M.MATHEW, MUNDUVALAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. MONISHA.P.R. PANACKAL HOUSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM,
5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. THE SUB REGISTRAR, MUNDIYERUMA S.R.O.,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.13378 of 2010-V
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Government Pleader takes notice for the Ist
respondent. Service is complete.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court
seeking the following reliefs:–
“i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2
to 5 not to harass the petitioners by way of unnecessary
investigations so as to prevent their peaceful living
together;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2
to 5 to grant adequate and effective police protection to
the petitioners to go to the office of the 6th respondent
for the registration of Ext.P3 marriage agreement under
the Special Marriage Act; and
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent
No.6 to register the marriage of the petitioners as per
the laws, immediately in the interest of justice.”
3. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows:– Petitioners have completed the age of 18 years. It
is stated that the petitioners were in love and they decided to
marry. They have entered into Ext.P3 agreement of marriage.
They approached the 6th respondent for registration of their
marriage. The 6th respondent issued notice. Ext.P4 is the
acknowledgment. Petitioners are living together after Ext.P3
WPC 13378/2010 -2-
marriage agreement. There is opposition from the family
members of the 2nd petitioner. It is stated that on religious
grounds they declared that the marriage will be prevented.
Now, respondents 2 to 5 are harassing the petitioners at the
instance of certain family members of the 2nd petitioner.
Petitioners got reliable information that certain relatives of the
2nd petitioner will cause obstruction for the registration of
marriage of the petitioners under the Special Marriage Act.
Petitioners have produced Ext.P5 certificate of marriage issued
under the Special Marriage Act along with I.A.No.6800/2010.
It is stated in the affidavit in support of the petition that the
marriage of the petitioners was registered on 11.5.2010.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the
case we dispose of the writ petition directing that respondents
2 to 5 shall not harass the petitioners on the basis of their
living together.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS