IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26120 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. EMILY KURIAKOSE, D/O.KURIAKOSE, PULAKUDIYIL,AZHAMANNOR P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. KURIAKOSE, PULAKUDIYIL,AZHAMANNOR P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.C.S.YESUDAS SMT.VILASINI NAYAK SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) ALUVA 683 101. 2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI 682 031. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 542. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL STATION, KOMBARA, ERNAKULAM 682 018. 5. SOBIN SKARIA,KUTTANCHIRA HOUSE, PIRANADOM P.O, MENMURY VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 667. (2) WPC 26120/11 2 6. K.C.SKARIA,KUTTANCHIRA HOUSE, PIRANADOM P.O, MENMURY VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 686 667. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.K. ABOOBACKER ADV. SMT.LISY T.SKARIA FOR R5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26120 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. The 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. 5th respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and 6th respondent is her father in law. The marital relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent now remains highly strained and various litigations between the parties are now pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is pointed out that, as per Ext.P1, that court had ordered payment of maintenance to the 1st petitioner and the child at her rate of Rs.5,000/- each. It is also evident that by virtue of Ext.P2 order the said court had permitted the 5th respondent to have access to the child from the court premises on second Saturday of every month, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. On each such occasion the 5th respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards conveyance charges to the 1st petitioner. It is stated that the 5th W.P.(C).26120/11 -2- respondent had filed a review petition against Ext.P1 order, which is pending before the Family Court. It is also stated that against Ext.P2 the 5th respondent had filed a review petition as per Ext.P4, which was dismissed by the Family Court. 2. It is alleged that on 10.9.2011 the respondents 5 and 6 along with the mother of the 5th respondent had caused assault on the petitioner at the premises of the Family Court. On the basis of complaint raise by the 1st petitioner, Ext.P5 criminal case was registered with respect to the said incident. In this writ petition the petitioners are seeking directions to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the life of the petitioner and to restrain the respondents 5 and 6 from indulging in any violence at the time when the petitioners are attending the Family Court at Ernakulam. Inter alia the petitioners are seeking directions for protection for their peaceful life at their residence from not being indulged in any manner by respondents 5 and 6. 3. In the counter affidavit of respondents 5 and 6, all W.P.(C).26120/11 -3- the allegations in the writ petition are stoutly refuted. Statements are to the effect that, various litigations are pending before the Family Court and this writ petition seeking police protection is filed only with an oblique motive to cause prejudice to those cases pending. It is alleged that the petitioners are haunting the 5th respondent and his family members from the very date of the marriage onwards and that they are attempting to prevent 5th respondent from seeing the child or having access to the child. However, to a specific question posed against respondents 5 and 6, learned counsel answered that they have no intention to cause any sort of threat, intimidation or assault to the petitioners and that they have no intention to obstruct the petitioners in any manner from appearing before the Family Court and from conducting the cases which are pending. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 submitted that, with respect to the alleged incident a crime has already been registered as W.P.(C).26120/11 -4- evident from Ext.P5 and the same is under investigation. It is further submitted that if the petitioners approach the 4th respondent, sufficient protection will be granted for their appearance before the Family Court and for conduct of the case. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the rival contentions addressed at the Bar, we are of the opinion that in the present jurisdiction this court need not go into the merits of matrimonial disputes or merits of the the litigations pending before the Family Court. It is left open to the parties to pursue the cases and to seek appropriate reliefs. However, it should be ensured that the petitioners are provided with absolute freedom to appear before the Family Court and also to produce the child before that court in compliance with Ext.P2 order, without any threat or intimidation or obstructions. We are of the opinion that, if there is any apprehension of causing obstructions to their coming to the court or about any sort of threat or intimidation, the petitioners can inform the W.P.(C).26120/11 -5- police and in such case necessary steps shall be taken to afford protection to the petitioners in this regard. 6. Therefore we dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents 3 and 4 to take effective steps to ensure that the petitioners can appear before the Family Court and take all needful steps to conduct the cases and to produce the child before that court in compliance with the directions contained in Ext.P2 order, from not being obstructed in any manner by respondents 5 and 6 or their men or anybody acting under them. It should also be ensured that there is no threat caused to the lives of the petitioners in any manner. The petitioners will approach the concerned police officials seeking such protection as and when found necessary. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb