IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14109 of 2008(D)
1. PONNAPPAN.C.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RURAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. FAISAL, S/O.ABDUL JALEEL,
4. SHOBA, C/O.FAISAL, AGED 42 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :21/10/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 14109 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioner submits, he was working as a driver in Gulf
for about 14 years and whatever he saved was sent to his wife
every month. Using the funds, one tipper lorry and a Maruti Zen
air conditioned car were purchased in the name of his wife. The
petitioner finally returned from the Gulf in January 2008. Later,
he came to know that the 4th respondent, his wife, developed
illicit relationship with the third respondent, Faisal, who was the
driver engaged by him, and finally she eloped with him on 6-4-
2008 taking Rs.50,000/- and also the gold ornaments kept by the
petitioner for the marriage of his younger daughter. Though the
petitioner moved the police, no effective action was taken
against his wife or her alleged paramour. The police have only
registered a crime for man missing. Therefore, the petitioner
WPC. 14109/2008 -2-
filed Ext.P1 representation before the Superintendent of Police,
Aluva detailing his plight and also praying for police protection.
He submits, he has been driven out by his wife from his house at
Edavanakkad and he is residing at Pulloot. He wants to come
back and reside in his house at Edavanakkad. On he is being
threatened by the third respondent, the petitioner sought
necessary protection, so that he can re-occupy his residential
building at Edavanakkadu. Alleging that the police did not take
any effective action, this writ petition is filed seeking the
following relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or
direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to afford
adequate and appropriate police aid and protection to the
life of this petitioner and his family immediately against the
imminent threat from the part of respondents 3 and 4.”
2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,
submitted that the 4th respondent along with a friend of her
appeared before the police and she has been produced before the
learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has released her.
The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the
WPC. 14109/2008 -3-
petitioner has sold his property at Edavanakkad and shifted his
residence to Pulloot. The 4th respondent is presently residing at
Ollur. It is also submitted that the third respondent has got
married and he is residing with his newly married wife.
3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying
all the allegations of the petitioner. He has also produced Ext.R3
(a) representation filed by the 4th respondent before the Circle
Inspector of Police pointing out that the third respondent is in no
way responsible for her missing. She went on her own because
of harassment from the part of her family members including her
husband and also the second son-in-law. The petitioner has not
filed any reply affidavit. But, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that Ext.R3(a) as a collusive document
created by respondents 3 and 4.
4. Going by the contents of Ext.P1 representation, we feel
that the police have no role to play in the marital dispute stated
therein. On the information lodged by the petitioner, the police
have already registered a crime for man-missing and the said
crime was closed on appearance of the 4th respondent before
the learned Magistrate. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold
WPC. 14109/2008 -4-
that the police have failed to discharge their duty. Further, the
police have no duty to interfere in this dispute in any manner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to
the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other
forums for appropriate reliefs.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
ks.