High Court Kerala High Court

Mercy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 20 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mercy vs The Superintendent Of Police on 20 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1874 of 2010(H)


1. MERCY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.EDWARD, WORKIN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL)

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE,

4. JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE YOHANNAN

5. PREEETHI AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MERCY,

6. PREJITH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISH GOPINATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :20/01/2010

 O R D E R
             P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
            =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
                  W.P.(C) No. 1874 of 2010
            =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
          Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

Raman, J.

Despite Ext.P1 complaint made to the Superintendent

of Police, Kollam, it is alleged that still there exists threat

against the petitioner from the party respondents, who are

none other than her husband, daughter and son-in-law. It is

contended that the petitioner is not even allowed to go to

her house. If that be so, her remedy is to take recourse

under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005. Then it is contended that she may be given protection

at her work place. There is no complaint in Ext.P1 alleging

any threat at her work place.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points

out that in paragraph 7 of Ext.P1 that there is an averment

that respondents visited her at her office at official hours

and harassed her in the presence of her colleagues and this

causes mental pressure. Thus, we find there is no physical

W.P.(C) No. 1874/2010 2

threat alleged in paragraph 7 of Ext.P1 also. Further the

date, on which the visit was made by the respondents, is

also not stated. In the entices, we cannot give any

protection as sought for based on Ext.P1. If there is any act

of a physical threat, giving such details, she can approach

the police and police will look into the same and take action,

in accordance with law.

Subject to the above observation, we dismiss the writ

petition.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.

mn.