IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32994 of 2008(C)
1. SAJEEV.P.R,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. SREELATHA.C.M,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
For Respondent :SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
W.P.(C)NO. 32994 OF 2008
============================
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The petitioner submits, he is running a Gent’s Beauty
Parlour by name “Spa Beauty Parlour” at Vaikom. Ext.P1 is the
lease deed, on the strength of which he took the premises on
rent for housing the said parlour. The 4th respondent is his wife.
They are living separately for the last four years. They were
jointly running a beauty parlour earlier. Since the petitioner was
driven out from his matrimonial home and they were living
separately, he was constrained to start the present business, it
is submitted. But the 4th respondent came along with her
supporters and caused obstruction to the functioning of the
present saloon. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred
Ext.P2 representation seeking necessary protection. Ext.P2 was
followed by Exts.P3, P4 and P5 representations before
WPC.32994/2008 -2-
respondents 1 to 3. Alleging inaction from the part of the police
to extend necessary protection, this writ petition is filed seeking
appropriate reliefs.
2. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating
that the present business is also a joint venture of the petitioner
and the 4th respondent. When the new business was started, the
petitioner cleverly executed the lease agreement in his name
and also got the D & O licence. The fund was raised for running
the said business by pledging a property jointly owned by them
in the State Bank of Travancore, Vaikom. Since the petitioner
failed to pay the amount due to the Bank, it has issued Ext.R4
(B)proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 to take over the mortgaged property and sell
it in public auction. She has produced Ext.R4(A) D & O licence
issued by the Municipality for the beauty parlour for the year
2004-05. It was in the name of the said respondent. The 4th
respondent has also moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Vaikom under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking appropriate reliefs. In
WPC.32994/2008 -3-
fact, it is the petitioner who is manhandling her and she
requires protection, it is submitted.
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying all the
averments of the 4th respondent. According to him, since the 4th
respondent has failed to run the beauty parlour from which he
was driven out, the amount due to the Bank fell in arrears. The
fund for the present beauty parlour is raised by himself. It was
started as early as in 2006 as evident from Ext.P1, it is
submitted.
4. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,
submitted that several representations were received from the
petitioner and the 4th respondent. So, both parties were
summoned to the police station and conciliatory efforts were
made to unite them. But the efforts of the police failed and the
parties were advised to approach the competent forum to
redress their respective grievances.
5. The dispute involved in this case is between the husband
and wife. Having regard to the disputed facts, we feel that it is
not proper for us to ask the police to interfere in this matter in
favour of one side or the other. The dispute will have to be
WPC.32994/2008 -4-
settled by the appropriate forum. But the police station is not
the appropriate forum to settle the dispute. The petitioner has
to work out his remedies elsewhere. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the
petitioner and his rights to move other appropriate forums. This
judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take any
action in accordance with law, if any cognizable offence is
reported.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE
M.C. HARI RANI,
JUDGE
ks.
WPC.32994/2008 -5-