CLINT J FERNANDEZ Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS, a young man and woman in love, have come to this Court complaining about threat to their lives from respondents 2 and 3 who are none other than the mother and maternal uncle of the girl.

(2.) THE father of the girl is employed abroad. Marriage between the petitioners was agreed upon and there was a betrothal with the blessings of the parents. But, subsequently, it is said that respondents 2 and 3 are not willing for the marriage and they were hurriedly trying to find out another groom for the second petitioner. In these circumstances, the second petitioner had gone to the first petitioner and they are now living together at his house. THE marriage was to be solemnised in the church, but the church authorities are now unwilling to co-operate because of the resistance of respondents 2 and 3. THE petitioners, it is alleged, now apprehend that respondents 2 and 3 may physically assault and indulge in violence against the petitioners. THEy pray that police protection may be granted to them to enable them to get married under the Special Marriage Act on or after 26.4.2011. Requisite notice has already been given on 26.3.2011 as is revealed from Ext.P4, it is submitted.

(3.) WE have considered all the relevant inputs. WE record the submission of respondents 2 and 3 through their counsel that they undertake not to indulge in any acts of violence against the petitioners or indulge in any conduct to obstruct their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. In the light of the said submission, we do not think that issue of any specific directions under Article 226 is necessary. WE do take note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that police protection shall be afforded to petitioners 1 and 2 to get married and to live together.