IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 14109 of 2008(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PONNAPPAN.C.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT CHENGARAPPILLI HOUSE, PULLOOTKARA ROAD, PULLOOT P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, KOCHI-680 663. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RURAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL, ALUVA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL P.O., VYPEEN. 3. FAISAL, S/O.ABDUL JALEEL, AGED 31 YEARS, MUSLIYAMVEETIL HOUSE, MAYA BAZAR, EDAVANAKADU P.O., VYPEEN. 4. SHOBA, C/O.FAISAL, AGED 42 YEARS, MUSLIYAMVEETIL HOUSE, MAYA BAZAR, EDAVANAKADU P.O., VYPEEN. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 14109/2008-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY R4. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 14109 OF 2008 ============================ DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner submits, he was working as a driver in Gulf for about 14 years and whatever he saved was sent to his wife every month. Using the funds, one tipper lorry and a Maruti Zen air conditioned car were purchased in the name of his wife. The petitioner finally returned from the Gulf in January 2008. Later, he came to know that the 4th respondent, his wife, developed illicit relationship with the third respondent, Faisal, who was the driver engaged by him, and finally she eloped with him on 6-4- 2008 taking Rs.50,000/- and also the gold ornaments kept by the petitioner for the marriage of his younger daughter. Though the petitioner moved the police, no effective action was taken against his wife or her alleged paramour. The police have only registered a crime for man missing. Therefore, the petitioner WPC. 14109/2008 -2- filed Ext.P1 representation before the Superintendent of Police, Aluva detailing his plight and also praying for police protection. He submits, he has been driven out by his wife from his house at Edavanakkad and he is residing at Pulloot. He wants to come back and reside in his house at Edavanakkad. On he is being threatened by the third respondent, the petitioner sought necessary protection, so that he can re-occupy his residential building at Edavanakkadu. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action, this writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus, any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and appropriate police aid and protection to the life of this petitioner and his family immediately against the imminent threat from the part of respondents 3 and 4.” 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the 4th respondent along with a friend of her appeared before the police and she has been produced before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has released her. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the WPC. 14109/2008 -3- petitioner has sold his property at Edavanakkad and shifted his residence to Pulloot. The 4th respondent is presently residing at Ollur. It is also submitted that the third respondent has got married and he is residing with his newly married wife. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations of the petitioner. He has also produced Ext.R3 (a) representation filed by the 4th respondent before the Circle Inspector of Police pointing out that the third respondent is in no way responsible for her missing. She went on her own because of harassment from the part of her family members including her husband and also the second son-in-law. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.R3(a) as a collusive document created by respondents 3 and 4. 4. Going by the contents of Ext.P1 representation, we feel that the police have no role to play in the marital dispute stated therein. On the information lodged by the petitioner, the police have already registered a crime for man-missing and the said crime was closed on appearance of the 4th respondent before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold WPC. 14109/2008 -4- that the police have failed to discharge their duty. Further, the police have no duty to interfere in this dispute in any manner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.