A.K. Basheer, J.

1. In this Writ Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, we have adopted an unusual procedure akin to that of a Trial Court to decide the issue as to whether or not the proposed marriage of petitioner No.1 Ms. Sali, aged 20 years with Mr. Shiline is to be permitted to be solemnized on March 29, 2009, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The facts revealed from the materials available on record may be briefly noticed:

3. the respondent herein, claiming that he had married petitioner No.1 on December 12, 2008 by undergoing customary rites prevalent in the Ezhava community, filed a petition for injunction before the Family Court, Trichur in O.P.No.377/2009 under S.7 of the Family Court Act praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Ms. Sali (petitioner No.1), her parents, brother and also her uncle from conducting the marriage of Ms. Sali with any other person. Along with the Original Petition, the respondent had filed an interlocutory application for temporary injunction. The said application was allowed by the Family Court and an ex parte order of interim injunction was passed on March 23, 2009 by which the petitioners herein were restrained from conducting the marriage of Ms. Sali. A true photocopy of the interim order of injunction passed by the Family Court is on record as Ext.P7.

4. The above order has been challenged in this Writ Petition.

5. When this Writ Petition came up for admission on March 25, 2009, this Court had passed an interim order directing the Family Court to consider the interlocutory application and pass orders thereon after hearing the parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, by 1 p.m. today, viz., march 27, 2009. This Court further directed that the Family Court shall hold a special sitting and cancel the camp sitting, if any, to comply with this direction.

6. Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, made a special mention in the forenoon about this case, and requested us that the Writ Petition be taken up today itself as the marriage of Ms. Sali is scheduled to be held on March 29, 2009. She further informed us that the learned Judge of the Family Court had passed orders making the order of interim injunction absolute. She submitted that all arrangements have already been made for the marriage. She drew our attention to Ext.P6 invitation card for the wedding. Learned senior counsel requested that the Writ petition be taken up today itself as otherwise irreparable injury and damage would be caused to the petitioners and their family.

7. When this case was taken up at about 4.10 p.m., we heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and also Sri. Santhosh Poduval, learned counsel for the respondent. A copy of the order passed by the Family Court today, is made available for our perusal.

8. In the course of hearing, we were informed that petitioner No.1 (Ms. Sali) is present in Court. When we spoke to her, she told us that she had never undergone any proper marriage ceremony as alleged by the respondent. When we perused Ext.P1 complaint filed by Ms. Sali before the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur in this regard, we deemed it fit to take her sworn statement. Therefore, she was administered oath and her statement was recorded in open Court.

9. In the statement Ms. Sali stated that in the morning on December 12, 2008 she was picked up by the respondent in one Omni car from the college. The respondent and his friends, who were with him, initially took her to Ayyappa temple at Vadakkancherry on the way to Cheruthuruthy. When the temple authorities refused permission to conduct any marriage ceremony in the temple, the respondent took Ms. Sali to another nearby Devi temple. There also the temple authorities refused permission. Thereafter, the respondent took Ms. Sali to his sister’s house. The respondent put a Thulasi garland around her neck. She was asked to fo