IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 10640 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- DEENA, W/O.LATE VENU, ASWATHI HOUSE, MUTHANA P.O., PALAYAMKUNNU, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.DEVADASAN, "RADHADEVAN", THOTTAKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM. 2. RADHA, W/O.DEVADASAN, "RADHADEVAN", THOTTAKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM. 3. BEENA VISHNU, W/O.VISHNU, V.B.HOUSE, VAILIAKAD P.O., CHIRAYANKEEZHU. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA CIRCLE. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY FOR R1-3 R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.10640 OF 2010 D PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2007. EXT.P2PHTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 10640 OF 2010 D --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd August, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding or compelling respondents 4 and 5 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her daughters. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding or directing respondents 1 to 3 not to commit any threat to the life of the petitioner. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 4th and 5th respondents to consider and act upon Exts.P2 and p3 in accordance with law.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a widow. First respondent is her brother. Second respondent is her mother and third respondent is her WPC.10640/2010 D 2 sister. There is reference to a partnership business and events which allegedly took place after death of her husband. It is further stated that there is threat by the first respondent along with the other party respondents to execute her share in favour of the first respondent. There is also threat of killing her daughters. There is further reference to event allegedly took place on 18.3.2010. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that the party respondents threatened the petitioner to take away the life of her daughters. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint, followed by Ext.P3. 3. A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 3 wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows: About six to seven years back, when the petitioner's family found it hard to make ends meet, the third respondent's husband extended financial support to set up a proprietorship concern for the petitioner. Reference is made to Ext.P1 partition deed. There is denial of amount being received from the petitioner or her husband. Reference is made to Ext.R1(b) lease deed. It is WPC.10640/2010 D 3 further stated that they have not and they will not threaten the petitioner, abuse her or otherwise interfere with her life. But, it is alleged that she has certain problems. Ext.R1(a) Certificate is produced. It is stated also that the allegation that they came to the petitioner's house and locked her in a room and threatened to kill her daughters is equally false. It is their case that the third respondent's husband paid capitation fee and secured a payment seat for the elder daughter and the third respondent and her deponent are also looking after the younger daughter who is in the care of second respondent in the deponent's house. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the party respondents reiterate that the party respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or her daughters. We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition directing that in case there is any threat from respondents 1 to 3 to the life of the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 shall afford adequate police protection as against any such threat. With regard to the WPC.10640/2010 D 4 daughters of the petitioner, in view of the undisputed position that they are living with the second respondent, we do not think, for the time being, it is necessary to pass any orders. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge