High Court Kerala High Court

M.John-Alias-Saju vs Dennis.M.Paul on 4 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
M.John-Alias-Saju vs Dennis.M.Paul on 4 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(Crl.).No. 26 of 2009(S)


1. M.JOHN-ALIAS-SAJU,AGED 56 YRS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DENNIS.M.PAUL,AGED 46 YRS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BOBY MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :04/02/2009

 O R D E R

A. K. Basheer & Thomas P. Joseph, JJ.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

W.P (Crl) No. 26 of 2009

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009.

Judgment
Basheer, J:

Mrs.Annamma Mathew, an 85 year old lady is reportedly staying in a

para medical care centre at Kalavoor in Alappuzha district. Petitioner and

respondent No.1 are her two children. Petitioner has a grievance that his

mother is not getting the right kind of care and attention at the centre where

she is now accommodated. Petitioner has a further case that his mother was

put in the para medical care centre by respondent No.1 without informing

him.

2. Respondent No.1 has of course stoutly denied the above

allegations. According to him, the mother is being taken care of quite

adequately and she is being attended to by doctors regularly.

3. We do no propose to deal with the other allegations made in the

writ petition. Similarly, we also refrain from either referring to or dealing

with the averments made by respondent No.1 in his counter affidavit.

Suffice it to say that it is unfortunate for the old lady to be at the centre of

this controversy at this old age.

4. We have interacted with the petitioner and respondent No.1 on

more than one occasion. In fact we advised both of them to sort out the

issue so that any kind of ill-will or bitterness which has developed in the

relationship between them is removed.

5. It is now brought to our notice that respondent No.1 had in fact

visited the petitioner at his residence and had a talk with him. Respondent

No.1 had made it clear to us at the first instance itself that he has absolutely

no objection, if his elder brother, the petitioner, wants to have a say in the

matter of treatment to be given to the mother.

WP (CRL.)No.26/09 2

6. It is submitted by the petitioner that there is a good hospital at

Mulanthuruthy, a short distance away from his residence and that it will be

convenient not only for him but to respondent No.1 also, if the mother is

admitted in that hospital. It is further submitted before us that depending

on the advice of the doctors of the hospital at Mulanthuruthy, the mother

can be given better treatment, if need arises, in one of the hospitals at

Ernakulam also.

7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances we are

satisfied that petitioner can be allowed to take Mrs. Annamma Mathew to

the hospital at Mulanthuruthy. At this stage learned counsel for respondent

No.1 submits that respondent No.1 will get her discharged and take her to

the hospital at Mulanthuruthy within two days from today. The above

submission is recorded.

We close the writ petition with the hope that the two brothers will

bury their hatchet and take care of their mother.

A.K. BASHEER
Judge

Thomas P. Joseph
Judge

an.