Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41228
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ABEY BIJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/31709/2022
K.MOHAMMED FAISAL NAHA P.A.PETER T.K.SHAJAHAN-SR.GP
The court established that protection under the Special Marriage Act is dependent on demonstrated threats, which were absent in this case.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Police Protection - Special Marriage Act - Relevant provisions outline the need for legal protection in cases of interfaith marriages and the court evaluated the necessity based on the factual background which led to the decision of dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, from different religions, sought police protection citing threats from the respondents related to their decision to marry, while the respondents denied any threats.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of any threats to the petitioners' lives and concluded that the respondents had no intention to interfere with their marriage.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection against threats related to their interfaith marriage.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of credible threats against the petitioners led to the conclusion that police protection was not warranted.
Final Decision: The writ petition is closed with no further orders necessary.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondents 2 and 3 to grant effective and adequate police protection to the lives of the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 to 6.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners, who belong to different religions and had decided to marry and live together and have approached the Sub Registrar, Punalur and there given by a notice of their intended marriage under the provisions of Special Marriage Act . It is contended that the respondents are threatening to attack the petitioners and their relatives as well.
4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents 4 to 6. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner is the 2nd daughter of the respondents 4 and 5 and that the respondents have not threatened or tortured the petitioners in any manner and the contentions that the petitioners are facing grave threat to their lives from these respondents is totally false. It is submitted that the petitioners had met on social media and that the 4th respondent had only tried to advice and convince the 2nd petitioner and that there was never any threat to their lives. It is further submitted that respondents 4, 5 and 6 do not intend to do anything affecting the peaceful married life of the petitioners. It is contended that since the petitioners are now living together at Kollam, there has been no occasion for any threat from the respondents and that they have no objection to the petitioners'
marriage.
Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the statements made in the affidavit, I am of the opinion that no further orders are necessary in the writ petition. The specific averment in the counter affidavit that there is no attempt by respondents 4, 5 and 6 to do anything effecting the peaceful married life of the petitioners is recorded.
This writ petition is closed.
