IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 2274 of 2010(H) 1. JOSE.K.P,AGED 56 YEARS, ... Petitioner Vs 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ... Respondent 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANTHIKKAD 4. ALPHONSA,W/O.K.P.JOSE,KURUTHUKULANGARA 5. JEROME JOSEPH,S/O.K.P.JOSE, For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :05/03/2010 O R D E R K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 2274 of 2010 H - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks protection for his life. 4th respondent
is the wife and 5th respondent is the son of the petitioner.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The 5th
respondent, from his college days, started misbehaving and
showing lack of respect to the 4th respondent and the petitioner.
Realising that the 4th respondent is not able to bring up the 5th
respondent properly, he returned from Gulf. 4th respondent used
to give money to the 5th respondent as and when demanded. The
4th respondent was having illicit relationship with another person.
Knowing this, the 5th respondent has been blackmailing the 4th
respondent. The 5th respondent exerted pressure on the 4th
W.P.(C).No. 2274 of 2010
respondent to file petition under the Domestic Violence Act against
the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the petition filed before the District Probation
Officer. Ext.P2 is the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic
Violence Act. Petitioner filed Ext.P3. It is stated that respondents 4
and 5 subjected the petitioner to cruelty. He filed Ext.P4 complaint
before the first respondent. It is stated that respondents 4 and 5
trespassed into the flour mill, where the petitioner is residing and
caused damage to the articles kept inside the flour mill. The petitioner
filed Ext.P5 complaint before the second respondent and Ext.P6
representation before the first respondent.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader. Though served, there is no appearance for
respondents 4 and 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks protection for the
petitioner to reside in his house. Learned Government Pleader submits
that there are disputes between the parties. He would also submit that
W.P.(C).No. 2274 of 2010
the petitioner has some psychological problems, as is discernible from
Ext.P2. We think that the petitioner should be relegated to appropriate
5. Accordingly we dispose of this Writ Petition relegating the
petitioner to pursue his remedy before appropriate forum/court. We
make it clear that the police will not interfere in the disputes between
the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 unless there is a direction
given by a Court or a Forum or such interference is necessary in
connection with the investigation of a cognizable offence.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)