Dismissed

Anitha Kumari v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2009WP(C)/24946/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that no further orders are required for police protection as the petitioner has left India. Exemoving the petitioner from a marriage liability, the court awarded exemplary costs to the respondent for insolence and closed the writ petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

No further police protection ordered. Exemplary costs awarded to the respondent. Writ petition closed as infructuous.

Anitha Kumari Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931

¶6

WP(C).No. 24946 of 2009(K)

PETITIONER(S):

ANITHA KUMARI, AGED 34, D/O VILASINI ANDIOFFICE PURAYIDOM, JAYANTHI COLONY, VETTUVILA, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALLAMMOODU POLICE STATION, ANCHALLAMMOODU, KOLLAM.

¶18

SASIKUMAR @ PODIYAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT THAMARAPALLIVADAKETHIL, JAYANTHI COLONY, VETTUVILA, PERINAD, KOLLAM.

¶19

RADHA, AGED 52, W/O.SOMAN, RESIDING AT VAYALIL VEEDU, THAMARAPALLY, PERINAD, KOLLAM.

¶20

GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP FOR R5,6

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.

¶23

W.P (C) NO.24946 OF 2009-K

¶24

Dated this, the 20^th day of October, 2009

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

¶27

Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already left India. Therefore, no further orders are required for police protection to her. The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that as suggested by this Court, he had made all arrangements for solemnizing his marriage with the petitioner. But, the petitioner did not turn up for the marriage. Therefore, he became a laughing-stock before the public. So, the learned counsel prayed for exemplary costs.

¶28

If the 5^th respondent has suffered any damages, he has

¶29

to work out his remedies to recover the same in accordance

¶30

WPC 24946/2009

¶31

¶32

with law. Without prejudice to the rights, if any, in this regard,

¶33

the Writ Petition is closed as infructuous.

¶34

K. Balakrishnan Nair,

¶35

Judge.

¶36

P. Bhavadasan, Judge.

¶37

nm.

Anitha Kumari v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha Kumari v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.T.Rajan Vs Cochin University of Science and Technol

State of Kerala Vs B.Indira

R.Sreelatha Vs Aravindakshan.G.

Valsala & Anr. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Corporate Manager,Chaldean Syrian Church Vs Pincy Paul

Denny Mathew Vs Pincy Paul