IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32063 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRASANTH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. REMESAN, RESIDING AT NO.4/94, THEKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, AZHEEKKAL P.O., SRAYIKKADU, ALAPPADU, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690 547. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES SMT.C.C.JANCY SRI.M.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OCHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 526. 3. BABITHA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VELIYIL, KOMANA, AMBALAPUZHA P.O., PIN-688 561. BY SR. G.P.SRI.T.P.SAJID THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVE COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD.25.11.2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.32063 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Petitioner who is the husband of the third respondent has filed this writ petition complaining that he is working as a Poojari in a temple at Trichur is being harassed by the the second respondent Sub Inspector at the instance of his wife. According to him, the relationship between him and his wife - the third respondent has been far from cordial and the 3rd respondent is always suspectful and she always harasses the petitioner using the name of a girl devotee who visited the temple where her husband is working as a Poojari. 2. For considering this writ petition for admission, we directed Sri. T.P. Sajid - learned Senior Government Pleader who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to seek instructions as to the correctness of the accusations of harassment. Sri. Sajid submitted that accusations of harassment by the 2nd respondent are not true. The second W.P.(C).NO.32063 OF 2011 : 2 : respondent received a complaint from the 3rd respondent against the petitioner. Like any other complaint that complaint had to be enquired into. Petitioner's attendance was requested over telephone in connection with an enquiry to be conducted into the complaint. This is what the petitioner brands as harassment. Sri. Sajid submitted that the enquiry so far conducted has revealed that the nature of the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is matrimonial. Hence the 2nd respondent does not intend to impose any settlement on the dispute either on the petitioner or on the 3rd respondent. 3. Sri. A.V. James, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that to Ext.P1 notice under which the 3rd respondent was requested to assume co-habitation with the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has replied expressing his willingness to oblige the request in Ext.P1. Under the above statement of affairs, we are of the view that it is not necessary for issuing any specific direction against the 2nd respondent. We record all the submissions W.P.(C).NO.32063 OF 2011 : 3 : of learned Government Pleader and dispose of this writ petition. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl