IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 834 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ REENA ROSHAN, AGED 33, W/O.ROSHAN, 2B, REGAL RETREAT, INTERNATIONAL STADIUM, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM - 682 033. 2. S.S.ROSHAN, CHERIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH EZHUPUNNA, OPP.KARUMANCHERRY ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, EZHUPUNNA PO,ALAPPUZHA - 688 548. 3. SHANAZ JAHAN, CHERIAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH EZHUPUNNA, OPP.KARUMANCHERRY ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, EZHUPUNNA PO,ALAPPUZHA - 688 548. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.834/2011 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 06/01/11 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF RECEIPT DTD. 06/01/11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2011-D ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner is the estranged wife of the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to the 1st respondent to afford police protection to the petitioner against wanton, violent, contumacious and culpable conduct of respondents 2 and 3 against her. She apprehends that peaceful residence in her house at 2B, Regal Retreat, Kaloor, and her life and person will be threatened by respondents 2 and 3. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through a W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2011 -: 2 :- counsel. According to respondents 2 and 3, there is absolutely no merit in this petition. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that he is continuing to live with the petitioner in the said residence at 2B, Regal Retreat. His mother, the 3rd respondent, also resides with them in the said flat, it is submitted. According to respondents 2 and 3, there is absolutely no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. The petitioner does not want the 3rd respondent to live in the flat and it is hence that she has come to this Court with such a petition claiming police protection. According to the 3rd respondent, she has contributed funds for the purchase of the flat. She has no other place to go. Under the guise of an order of police protection, the petitioner is attempting to throw her out of the apartment. This may not be permitted, contends the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Notice was given to the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of the 1st respondent, even though there are disputes between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, there is no threat or risk to the life or person of the petitioner. The petitioner is residing in the said flat 2B, Regal Retreat. The 2nd respondent is doing business at Bangalore and he occasionally comes to the building 2B, Regal Retreat. Even W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2011 -: 3 :- in the absence of the 2nd respondent, according to the learned Government Pleader, the 3rd respondent goes to the house of the petitioner to interact with the grandchildren who are available in the said apartment. Though there are disputes and disagreements between the parties, it is not necessary to issue any specific directions for grant of police protection. Police do not apprehend any threat. In case there is any threat, necessary action shall be taken by the police to deter and abate such threat, if any, to the person and life of the petitioner, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. From the submissions at the Bar, it appears that there is a dispute about the rights of the contestants over the apartment in which the petitioner resides. According to the petitioner, the apartment stands in the name of the sister's husband of the 3rd respondent; but the petitioner's father has spent money to purchase the apartment from the 3rd respondent's sister's husband. Thus, according to the petitioner, her father has purchased the property and she is in occupation and residence as permitted by her father. According to respondents 2 and 3, 25 cents of land belonging to the 3rd respondent was given to the sister's husband of the 3rd respondent and rights over the apartment have been obtained thus. W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2011 -: 4 :- 5. Admittedly there is no civil litigation between the parties though there are disagreements and disputes about the nature of the rights that they have over the apartment in which they reside. We are not persuaded to agree that the said disputes can or ought to be resolved in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. If any one has a claim that the other is liable to be excluded from the apartment or that they are entitled for joint residence in the house, it is for such parties to move the civil court and seek appropriate directions. The police cannot be permitted to resolve such civil dispute between the parties and consequently we cannot give directions to the police to resolve the disputes and to give protection to the rights of either. Suffice it to say that the parties if they want any direction regarding occupation/enjoyment of the property/apartment, they must go before the civil court and seek appropriate directions. 6. Coming to the alleged threat to the life and person of the petitioner, we accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in the perception of the 1st respondent there is no such threat to the life or person of the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in case there is any genuine complaint of such threat to life or person of the petitioner, the 1st respondent shall take W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2011 -: 5 :- necessary steps to abate such threat/risk. No further directions, we are satisfied, deserve to be issued. 7. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge