IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35587 of 2010(W)
1. RAZIYA ANDIYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. THIRUNILATH BEERAN ALI,
5. PALLIKKAL BEERANKUTTY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :07/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking
directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for her against the
alleged illegal, violent and culpable conducts of the 5th
respondent. The 4th respondent is her husband. The 5th
respondent is a friend of the 4th respondent. He is also the
uncle’s son of the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner,
the 4th respondent is employed abroad. The 5th respondent is
available in India. The petitioner’s daughter had fallen in love
with a person and a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus
was filed before this Court. Ext.R5(d) is the judgment passed in
that case. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is
vexing, tormenting, harassing and indulging in objectionable
conduct against the petitioner. She prayed that appropriate
directions may be issued to respondents 1 to 3 to abate such
hardship to her from the 5th respondent.
2. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. They
totally deny the allegations. The 4th respondent asserts that he
W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 2
has already divorced the petitioner in accordance with law and
that he has nothing more to do with the petitioner. According to
the 4th and 5th respondents, the petitioner is residing in a house
which belonged originally to the 4th respondent and which has
later been transferred to the 5th respondent. The learned
counsel for the 4th respondent submits that in view of the
divorce, the 4th respondent shall not proceed to the petitioner
hereafter. The learned counsel on behalf of the 5th respondent
accepts that both the 4th and 5th respondents shall not in any way
cause any difficulties or hardship to the petitioner. They have
not done so hitherto and shall not do so hereafter. False
allegations of improper behaviour are being raised against the
petitioner by respondents 4 and 5 with malicious motives, allege
respondents 4 and 5.
3. The learned Government Pleader after taking
instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that at the moment,
the police do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner
or her person. If there be any such instance, the petitioner can
complain and respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action.
That undertaking may be recorded and proceedings may be
closed, submits the learned Government Pleader.
W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 3
4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 further
submit that civil proceedings have already been initiated against
the petitioner by the 5th respondent seeking recovery of the
property in which the petitioner is residing, ie. O.S.No.242 of
2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. The
learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that except to
prosecute that litigation claiming recovery, they shall not in any
way proceed to the property or cause any hardship to the
petitioner.
5. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no
further specific directions are necessary. We record the
submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that
respondents 4 and 5 shall not in any way proceed to the
residence of the petitioner or cause hardship, inconvenience or
harassment to the petitioner. We record the submission of the
learned Government Pleader that if there be any such genuine
complaint of contumacious and culpable acts on the part of
respondents 4 and 5, respondents 1 to 3 shall afford necessary
protection to the petitioner. We further specifically record the
submission of respondents 4 and 5 that they shall not in any way
cause obstruction to the residence of the petitioner in her
W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 4
present residence subject of course to the right of the 5th
respondent to recover the property in accordance with law
through the civil court. We further record that though the 4th
respondent claimed that he has divorced the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no
divorce in accordance with law and the petitioner is unaware of
and does not accept any such divorce.
6. We are not going into all the other disputes between
the parties. We intend to express no opinion on those aspects.
For the purpose of this case, we are satisfied that appropriate
directions can be issued to respondents 1 to 3, as agreed.
7. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part as
agreed. We accept the undertaking of respondents 1 to 3 that if
there be any contumacious, culpable or violent acts on the part
of respondents 4 & 5 against the petitioner, they shall afford
necessary protection to the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/