IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37531 of 2009(J)
1. JAYASREE, D/O.NASON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. CHANDRA, S/O.SATHYANESAN NADAR,
5. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SATHYANESAN NADAR,
6. BABY, W/O.SATHYANESAN NADAR,
7. SATHYANESAN NADAR, -DO- -DO-
For Petitioner :SRI.R.GOPAN
For Respondent :SRI.G.SUDHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :01/07/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 37531 of 2009 J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph Francis, J.
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is filed with the following prayers:
“i) issue a writ of mandamus or order or
direction to respondents 1 to 3 to afford sufficient
police protection to the life ad property of the
petitioner.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or order or
direction to the third respondent to see that Ext.P3
order is strictly complied with.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or order or
direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take proper
action pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 complaints.”
W.P.(C).No. 37531 of 2009
2
2. The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows. The marriage
between the petitioner and 4th respondent was solemnised on
10.4.2008 at Attukal Devi Temple, Thiruvananthapuram according to
their rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, they lived together as
husband and wife. While so, respondents 4 and 5 induced the
petitioner for illegal relationship with others. The petitioner was not
willing, which caused enmity in the minds of respondents 4 and 5.
They brutally manhandled the petitioner, removed her clothes, dragged
through the road and kept her there.
3. Crime No. 148 of 2009 of Neyyar Dam Police Station was
registered for offences punishable under Sections 294B, 323 and 324
I.P.C. against respondents 4 and 5. The petitioner filed C.M.P. 2388
of 2009 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada
under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, passed an
interim order against the respondents from restraining the petitioner
W.P.(C).No. 37531 of 2009
3
from entering the house and committing domestic violence upon her.
The Station House Officer, Neyyar Dam Police Station was directed to
give protection to the petitioner for implementation of the order.
4. On 23.11.2009, the 6th respondent trespassed into the house
of the petitioner and taken away a gold chain weighing 3 sovereign and
a ring and assaulted her. She was hospitalised. She filed complaint
before respondents 2 and 3 against the 6th respondent and requested
the police to give protection to her. Respondents 1 to 3 have not taken
any action pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 complaint. Hence she filed this
Writ Petition.
5. Respondents 5 to 7 filed counter affidavit jointly and the 4th
respondent filed a separate counter.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the party respondents as also the learned Government Pleader.
7. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that
the petitioner is not residing in the house in question. Respondents 4
W.P.(C).No. 37531 of 2009
4
and 5 are the sons of respondents 6 and 7. They disputed the marriage
between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The petitioner herein has
filed C.M.P. 2388 of 2009 before the J.F.C.M., Kattaklkada under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
and she has obtained an order dt. 26.6.2009 and the respondents therein
are restrained from restraining the petitioner from staying in the
disputed house.
8. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that the
petitioner came to his house as a Home Nurse for looking after his
bedridden mother. The 6th respondent has filed O.S.No. 720 of 2009
before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara against the petitioner and the
4th respondent herein to restrain them from making any obstruction to
the peaceful possession and enjoyment and for taking income from the
property. She obtained an interim order also.
9. Since the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and availed
W.P.(C).No. 37531 of 2009
5
equally efficacious remedy, we are of the view that this is not a fit case
to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. More over, proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution are of summary nature and disputed questions of facts
should not normally be agitated before this Court and this Court
should not proceed to determine such questions.
This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed as it is without any
merit.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm