IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2008 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No.14360 OF 2008(H) ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. TONNY JOHN, S/O. V.M.JOHN, AGED 32 YEARS, VAZHUVELIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. V.M.JOHN, S/O.LATE MATHAI, AGED 66 YEARS, RETIRED COMPANY EMPLOYEE, VAZHUVELIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. MOLY M.JOHN, W/O. V.M.JOHN, AGED 59 YEARS, VAZHUVELIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.S.P.CHALY RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WOMEN POLICE CELL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE BUILDING, PALAKKAD. WPC 14360 OF 2008 -2- 4. REEJA ANN MATHEW, D/O MATHEW KOSHY, AGED 22 YEARS, DHAYA HOUSE, WEST YAKKARA ROAD, NEAR YAKKARA RAILWAY GATE, PALAKKAD-678 014. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN & P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.14360 of 2008-H ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The first petitioner is the son of petitioners 2 and 3. The 4th respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. The marriage between the first petitioner and the 4th respondent was solemnized on 23-10-2006. Later, on her own will, the 4th respondent left the matrimonial home. Attempts for reconciliation made by the Ist petitioner failed and Ext.P1 agreement was entered into between the first petitioner and the 4th respondent on 18-8-2007 wherein the 4th respondent expressed her intention to reside separately. The 4th respondent has in Ext.P1 also acknowledged receipt of gold ornaments. 2. The first petitioner has filed O.P.No.632 of 2008 under Section 10 (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, in the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking dissolution of marriage and it is pending. The first petitioner's grievance is that, in the 3rd week of April, 2008 his parents were summoned by the 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector, Women Police Cell, Palakkad over telephone, to be present before her on 28-4-2008 to discuss about a complaint received from the 4th WPC 14360/2008 -2- respondent. It is stated that when petitioner's 2 and 3 met the 3rd respondent on 28-4-2008 they were confronted with the threat that unless the jewelery and other properties of the 4th respondent are returned on 20-5-2008, they will be charged with various offences and put behind the bars. The petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the 3rd respondent not to compel them to settle the matrimonial and civil dispute between the first petitioner and the 4th respondent and not to harass them. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission on 9-5-2008, this court directed the Government Pleader to get instruction. The 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, Women Cell, Palakkad has filed a statement dated 12-5-2008 wherein it is stated that the petitioners were summoned to the police station to enquire into the complaint filed by the 4th respondent regarding return of gold ornaments and money which was entrusted at the time of marriage. The statement also discloses that the 4th respondent expressed her inability to live with the petitioners and that the parties were advised to come to the Women Cell, Palakkad on 20-5-2008 after taking a decision in the matter. The 3rd respondent also states that the first petitioner was in no way harassed and that her attempt was only to settle the matter favourably for both the parties. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as WPC 14360/2008 -3- well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. In the nature of the order that we propose to pass, we do not feel it necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent. 5. While the police should be conceded the freedom to investigate offences under the IPC or any other penal law, the police have no role to play in the settlement of matrimonial disputes. It is evident from Ext.P1 that the 4th respondent has chosen to live separately on her own will. Ext.P3 discloses that the first petitioner has taken steps to obtain a decree dissolving the marriage between him and the 4th respondent. If the 4th respondent has any claim over any property, movable or immovable including gold and cash, her remedy lies before the Family Court which has got the powers to enquire into and adjudicate upon such matters and pass a decree directing the first petitioner to return the movables in specie or pay the value thereof. 6. After hearing the submissions made at the Bar and on perusing the records, we feel that the 3rd respondent is not justified in interfering with the dispute with the first petitioner and the 4th respondent or in taking steps to settle the disputes between them. If the complaint filed by the 4th respondent discloses the commission of any cognizable offence, the police have the power and authority to investigate into the complaint and file a report in the competent court. WPC 14360/2008 -4- 7. We are of the view that in the case on hand, the interference by the 3rd respondent to settle the dispute is totally unfounded. In such circumstances, we direct respondents 2 and 3 to refrain from interfering in the matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and 4th respondent. This will not however stand in the way of respondents 2 and 3 from investigating into any complaint filed by the 4th respondent, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE. (P.N.RAVINDRAN) JUDGE. MS