IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 781 of 2011(W)
1. KUPPOZHAKKAL JOSEPH ALIAS JOSEPH LUKE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KASARAGOD.
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. ANTONY ALIAS JAISON, S/O.JOSEPH LUKE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.S.JIJI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
R.BASANT &
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
WPC No.781 of 2011
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th January, 2011
JUDGMENT
Basant, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue
of directions under Article 226 of the constitution to
respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the
petitioners against the wanton, culpable and violent acts
of his son, the fourth respondent herein.
2. According to the petitioner, he and his wife reside
in a residential building which stands in the name of the
petitioner and which is situated in a property belonging to
his brother-in-law. The petitioner is the Power of Attorney
holder of the said brother-in-law who is said to be
employed in the United States. The petitioner and his wife
are residing in the residential building situated in the
property. The fourth respondent was indulging in
contumacious and culpable acts against the petitioner and
the petitioner was in these circumstances constrained to
approach the civil court and obtain Ext.P5 decree.
wpc No.781/2011 2
Subsequently, the petitioner had come to this Court
seeking police protection and it is submitted that such
petition was earlier allowed. Subsequently, the parties
had come to agreement and the fourth respondent was
residing with the petitioner and his wife in the property.
But, according to the petitioner, the attitude of the fourth
respondent changed and he is now indulging in
contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the
petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner
came to this Court with this petition. Interim directions
were issued on 14.1.2011. Respondents 1 to 3 were
directed “to afford protection to the petitioner against the
violent acts from the fourth respondent against the
petitioner”. That direction is still in force.
3. The fourth respondent has entered appearance
before court. He submits that actually the property
belongs to his uncle and the petitioner’s father is acting on
the strength of a power of attorney issued in his favour by
his uncle. His uncle, according to the fourth respondent,
now wants to revoke the power of attorney. The fourth
respondent is worried that the petitioner may, making use
wpc No.781/2011 3
of the power of attorney, alienate the property belonging
to his maternal uncle.
4. The fourth respondent categorically states before
Court that he is not now residing with the petitioner in the
house in question. He shall not go to the house in
question. Against the apprehended alienation of the
property by the petitioner, the fourth respondent shall
take necessary steps in accordance with law. The fourth
respondent undertakes that he shall not go to the house
where the petitioner resides along with his wife (i.e. the
mother of the fourth respondent). He shall not indulge in
any contumacious, culpable and violent acts against the
petitioner. This undertaking may be accepted. No further
directions are necessary, submits the learned counsel for
the fourth respondent.
5. Notice was given to the learned Government
Pleader and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of
respondents 1 to 3 submits that the interim order dated
14.1.2011 is being enforced scrupulously. In the
perception of respondents 1 to 3, there is no threat to the
life or person of the petitioner now. In view of the
wpc No.781/2011 4
undertaking by the fourth respondent that he shall not
enter the house where the petitioner resides and shall not
cause any harm to the petitioner, no further specific
directions are necessary. The interim order dated
14.1.2011 may be made absolute and this proceedings
may be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader.
6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We
take note of the undertaking given by the fourth
respondent. We take note of the submission of the learned
Government Pleader. We are, in these circumstances,
satisfied that the interim directions issued on 14.1.2011
can be made absolute and further proceedings can be
closed.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed. The interim
direction issued on 14.1.2011 is made absolute.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
JUDGE
css/