IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20014 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BETTY VARGHESE,AGED 32,S/O.VARGHESE, R/AT LISSIE BHAVAN, ANAYADI P.O. CHERUKUNNAM, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. LINSON BETTY AGED 13, S/O. BETTY VARGHEESE, OF -DO- 3. LISON BETTY, AGED 10,S/O.BETTY VARGHEESE OF -DO- BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SRI.P.Y.AHAMMED PHYSI SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLCIE STATION. 3. GIRIJA, AGED 33,W/O. SURESH, R/AT VARTHUNDIL VEEDU, PALLIKKAL P.O. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SURESH,AGED 37, FATHER'S NAME IS UNKNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/AT VARTHUNDIL VEEDU,PALLIKKAL P.O. KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 20014 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. First petitioner, who is a business man, is the father of petitioners 2 and 3. This writ petition is filed complaining police harassment. On going through the pleading, we could understand that the first petitioner and his wife are not in good terms. They were living separate. The children were with the mother. Thereafter, the mother went abroad leaving the children under the custody of her relatives who are respondents 3 and 4. It is alleged that respondents 3 and 4 ill-treating the children. Therefore, the petitioner has taken the custody of the children by himself without approaching any court of law. 2. The learned Government Pleader rightly pointed out that in such circumstances, if a complaint is received from respondents 3 and 4, the police has to investigate and it cannot be treated as harassment. Admittedly, there was a maintenance W.P.(C) No.20014/2009 2 case filed before the Family Court and maintenance was awarded to the children. 3. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the children is not a matter which could be decided in this writ petition. However, if the petitioner is able to establish his right to have the children, there cannot be any criminal case against him, but whether or not in the factual situation, the petitioner has taken the children forcefully, is a matter for investigation by the police. Therefore, the petitioner can explain his stand before the police, whereupon the police will consider all the aspects of the matter and proceed in accordance with law. In such circumstances, we do not find any harassment as alleged by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.