IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8308 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ . VELLACHAL PARAMBIL KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.VELLACHAL PARAMBIL KUNHAPPA, RESIDING AT ERAMAM, ERAMAM AMSOM, ERAMAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINGOME. 3. VELLACHAL PARAMBIL SHANTHA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, RESIDING AT ERAMAM, ERAMAM AMSOM, ERAMAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 4. VELLACHAL PARAMBIL VINOD, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SHANTHA, RESIDING AT ERAMAM, ERAMAM AMSOM, ERAMAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 5. VELLACHAL PARAMBIL PRAMOD, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SHANTHA, RESIDING AT ERAMAM, ERAMAM AMSOM, ERAMAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 6. VELLACHAL PARAMBIL VINAYAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SHANTHA, RESIDING AT ERAMAM, ERAMAM AMSOM, ERAMAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY G.P.SRI.P.A. SALIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.8308 OF 2008-L -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner claims, he owns and is in possession of 1 acre 87.5 cents of land in Eramam amsom of Kannur District. Respondents 3 to 6 are his wife and children. The petitioner is not allowed to take usufructs from the said property. The said respondents threatened him when he attempted to do that. He moved the police for protection. He filed O.S.No.8/2006 before the Munsiff Court, Payyannur, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties, taking usufructs from there and committing waste. The defendants therein are respondents 3 to 6, his wife and children. There is an interim order in that suit. In the above background, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. “to declare that R1 and R2 failed to act as per law in the matter of protection to the life and property of the petitioner; ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or orders directing R1 and R2 to WPC.NO.8308/08 . 2 afford sufficient police protection to the life and P1 property of the petitioner specifically ensuring that the petitioner is able to live and take income from P1 property peacefully and without any hindrance from R3 to 6; iii. to further direct R1 and R2 to register crime against R3 to R6 for the commission of offences disclosed in P2 to 4 to proceed as per law; and iv. to issue any other appropriate order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. If the party respondents are interfering with enjoyment of the property by the petitioner, he has to get appropriate interim orders from the civil court for the same. If the order of the civil court is violated , the said court can direct the police to render assistance to enforce its orders. If the police has not registered any crime on the information lodged by the petitioner, he has got other remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has to invoke those remedies. The threat to the petitioner's life is there only when he tries to take usufructs from the property. The dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 is a family dispute. We feel that WPC.NO.8308/08 . 3 the police cannot asked to interfere in the family dispute. The petitioner has to work out his remedy by approaching other appropriate forums. Accordingly without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedy before appropriate other forums, this writ petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl