IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22838 of 2008(Y)
1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
... Respondent
2. S.I. OF POLICE, EAST POLICE STATION;
3. SARIKA, D/O.SIDHARTHAN
4. SIDHARTHAN, DO.DO.
5. ANILKUMAR, DO.DO.
6. MAINA @ KRISHNA DAS
7. RAMDAS, JYOTHI BHAVAN, MAYYANAD PO.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :02/09/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 22838 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the
relatives of his daughter in law are physically threatening and
harassing him. His son’s marriage with the third respondent took
place on 5-12-2007. They are living separated because of difference
of opinion between them. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that
respondents 4 to 7 who are the father and other relatives of the third
respondent are threatening him for the alleged fault of his son. In the
above background, he filed Ext.P1 petition before the Police and
thereafter this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs.
2. Respondents 3 to 7 have filed a counter affidavit denying the
allegations. In fact they are being threatened by the petitioner and
his son with dire consequences if they attempted to file any criminal
proceedings against them. The third respondent is a student now.
They are continuing their harassment towards the third respondent in
her educational institution also, it is pointed. The party respondents
WPC.22838/2008 -2-
have also submitted that they have no intention to harm or harass the
petitioner. They have not done that also, it is submitted.
3. Respondents 3 to 7 further submitted that they in fact require
protection from the petitioner and his son. The learned counsel for
the petitioner denied the allegations made against him by the
respondents. He also submits that he has no intention whatsoever to
attack the party respondents or harass them.
The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted
that it is a family dispute. We record the submission made on behalf
of the petitioner that he has no intention to harass the party
respondents. We also record the submission made by respondents 4
to 7 that they have no intention to harass the petitioner. Recording
the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and
respondents 3 to 7, the writ petition is disposed of.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.
WPC.22838/2008 -3-