AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Basant, J.—The Petitioners are a newly married couple who were forced to enter matrimony under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act despite the fact that both belong to the same religion. It is submitted that Respondents 4 and 5, parents of the 2nd Petitioner wife do not approve of the marriage. Respondents 4 and 5 are creating unnecessary difficulties to the Petitioners to lead matrimony in peace. The Respondent had approached this Court with a petition for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and the Bench which dealt with the matter had disposed of that writ petition ultimately by Ext. P2 judgment. The wishes of the 2nd Petitioner were ascertained by the Bench and the Bench had permitted the couple to live in peace. Directions were issued that if any threat against the Petitioners herein were brought to the notice of the police, the same must be enquired into and if found genuine, protection must be given to the life of the Petitioners.
It is the grievance of the Petitioners that notwithstanding such terms issued in Ext. P2 Respondents 4 and 5, the parents of the second Petitioner are causing unnecessary difficulties to them. The Petitioners apprehend that Respondents 4 and 5 may indulge in contumacious and culpable acts of violence against the Petitioners. They are prevailing upon the police to vex and harass the Petitioners.
This petition was admitted. Respondents 4 and 5 had entered appearance through counsel. Considering the nature and circumstances of this case, we felt it appropriate that the parties should be referred for mediation. Parties were referred for mediation. The learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 submits that they have no intention whatsoever to assault or cause any harm to the Petitioners. The parental love and affection of Respondents 4 and 5 in favour of the 2nd Petitioner instill in them the apprehension that the second Petitioner may not be treated properly by the 1st Petitioner. They will not indulge in contumacious or culpable violent acts against the Petitioners, submits the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5.
The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no merit in the submission of the Petitioners that police are harassing them. The police have no intention to harass the Petitioners at all. It is true that a complaint was received subsequent to Ext. P2 from Respondents 4 and 5 wherein they raised the grievance that whereabouts of their daughter-2nd Petitioner is not known. In this context the police had taken some action. The police have no intention whatsoever to interfere with the peaceful life and residence of the Petitioners. The police shall not in any way call the Petitioners to the police station on any complaint that has already been filed and pending. In these circumstances there is no necessity to issue any direction under Article 226 of the Constitution for protection of the Petitioners or for prevention of harassment by the police against the Petitioners, submits the learned Government Pleader.
We have considered all the relevant inputs. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the police have no intention in any manner to interfere in the peaceful residence of the Petitioners. Accepting this undertaking we are of the opinion that this petition can now be dismissed.
In the result:
a. We accept the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 as well as learned Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3.
b. We are satisfied that no further specific directs are in these circumstances necessary.
c. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed with the above observations.