IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19957 of 2008(A)
1. SUNEER P.M.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA.
... Respondent
2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.
3. MUHAMMED KUNJU,
4. NAZEEMA, D/O HANEEFA, PARAYAMOOLA HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.T.SEBASTIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.19957 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is a gulf returnee. He is working in a hair dressing
saloon at Kakkanad. The 4th respondent is his wife and the 3rd respondent
is his wife’s brother. The petitioner submits, the marriage between him
and the 4th respondent has been severed by his pronouncing Talak as per
the Muslim Law. But, even thereafter, the 4th respondent is residing in his
house. With the help of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent has kicked
him out. At present, he is staying with his sister. The allegations of
manhandling him by respondents 3 and 4 is supported by Exhibit P1
accident-cum-wound certificate. He has filed Exhibits P2 and P3
representations before the police pointing out the criminal actions of the
4th respondent which includes causing injury to him by biting. But the
police, did not take any effective action. In the above background, this
writ petition is filed.
2. As directed by this Court, the first respondent has filed a
statement, in which it is submitted that in fact the petitioner is the
perpetrator of atrocities on the 4th respondent and he is an accused in
Crime No.383/07 of Thrikkakara Police Station registered under Section
498A of the IPC. He has taken into his possession, the 4th respondent’s
W.P.(C)No.19957/08 -2-
SSLC certificate, ration card, voter ID card and birth certificate of the
younger child. She is maintaining herself and her two children born out of
the wedlock with the petitioner, by working as a domestic servant in the
neighbourhood. All the allegations made by the petitioner are unfounded, it
is submitted.
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations
made by the first respondent in his statement filed before this Court. He has
reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and has also produced
Exhibit P6 title deed which would show that the property in which the 4th
respondent now resides, belongs to him.
4. Having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that it is not
proper for this Court to ask the police to render any protection to the
petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the omission of the police to
register a crime against the 4th respondent, based on the information lodged
by him, he may move the competent criminal court and seek appropriate
reliefs.
In the result, 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.
dsn
