High Court Kerala High Court

Reena @ Veena vs The State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Reena @ Veena vs The State Of Kerala on 24 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4744 of 2010(P)


1. REENA @ VEENA, AGED 25 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. MANIYAN NADAR, AGED 50 YEARS,

5. SUNDRESAN, AGED 43 YEARS,

6. SUBHADRA, AGED 65 YEARS,

7. CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 55 YEARS,

8. SHYLAJA @ SHEELA, W/O.MANIYAN NADAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :24/02/2010

 O R D E R
          K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) No.4744 of 2010-P
           ----------------------------------------------
         Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

K.M.Joseph, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking police

protection. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as

follows:–Petitioner is the widow of one Suresh. A boy was

born to the petitioner and deceased husband Suresh on

12.4.2009. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner

purchased 10 cents of property on 18.2.2003. He had also

obtained another property in a partition. There is a house

constructed by availing loan in the 10 cents of property

covered by Sale Deed No.432/2003. There was also insurance

policy. The husband of the petitioner died on 18.8.2009

succumbing to the injuries in an accident. Petitioner and her

child are the legal heirs. Respondents 4 to 8 are the

relatives of the husband. It is stated that their attitude

changed. It is stated that they are causing threat and are

obstructing the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner.

W.P.C.No.4744/2010 -2-

2. We had asked the Government Pleader to get

instruction. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction,

would submit that, on the basis of the complaint filed,

respondents 4 to 8 were called to the police station and they

have stated that they have no objection to the petitioner

staying in the house of the husband.

3. Recording the above submission of the learned

Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of. We

further make it clear that the petitioner may approach

competent Civil Court for appropriate reliefs if she is so

advised.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.

MS