High Court Kerala High Court

Betty Varghese vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 16 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Betty Varghese vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 16 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20014 of 2009(V)


1. BETTY VARGHESE,AGED 32,S/O.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. LINSON BETTY AGED 13,
3. LISON BETTY, AGED 10,S/O.BETTY VARGHEESE

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA
                       ...       Respondent

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. GIRIJA, AGED 33,W/O. SURESH, R/AT

4. SURESH,AGED 37, FATHER'S NAME IS

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :16/07/2009

 O R D E R
              P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.

                   -------------------------------

                    W.P.(C) No. 20014 of 2009

                   -------------------------------

                  Dated this the 16th July, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Raman, J.

First petitioner, who is a business man, is the

father of petitioners 2 and 3. This writ petition is filed

complaining police harassment. On going through the pleading,

we could understand that the first petitioner and his wife are not

in good terms. They were living separate. The children were

with the mother. Thereafter, the mother went abroad leaving the

children under the custody of her relatives who are respondents 3

and 4. It is alleged that respondents 3 and 4 ill-treating the

children. Therefore, the petitioner has taken the custody of the

children by himself without approaching any court of law.

2. The learned Government Pleader rightly pointed

out that in such circumstances, if a complaint is received from

respondents 3 and 4, the police has to investigate and it cannot

be treated as harassment. Admittedly, there was a maintenance

W.P.(C) No.20014/2009

2

case filed before the Family Court and maintenance was awarded

to the children.

3. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the

custody of the children is not a matter which could be decided in

this writ petition. However, if the petitioner is able to establish

his right to have the children, there cannot be any criminal case

against him, but whether or not in the factual situation, the

petitioner has taken the children forcefully, is a matter for

investigation by the police. Therefore, the petitioner can explain

his stand before the police, whereupon the police will consider all

the aspects of the matter and proceed in accordance with law.

In such circumstances, we do not find any

harassment as alleged by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ

petition is dismissed.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.

nj.