IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 930 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SOBIN K.BABU, S/O. AUGASTINE, KARINGOZHAKKAL HOUSE, EZHACHERRY P.O., PALA. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO, SRI.VINCENT K.C. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O. THOMAS, ELAMPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, MUKKOOTTUTHARA VILLAGE, CHATHANTHARA KARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. 2. SIJU THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, ELAMPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, MUKKOOTTUTHARA VILLAGE, CHATHANTHARA KARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 465. 3. JOHNY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, PADAVIL HOUSE, KAVEEKUNNUE, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA-686 575. 4. KOCHU, S/O. JOSEPH, PADAVIL HOUSE, MANIYAMKULAM, ERATTUPETTA, PALA-686 575. 5. SINI, W/O. SOBIN, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ELAMPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, MUKKOOTTUTHARA VILLAGE, CHATHANTHARA KARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. WP(C).No. 930 of 2011(M) 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., PIN-686 576. 7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, RAMAPURAM BAZAR P.O., PIN-686 576. R6 & R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.K. VIPINDAS. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 930 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P. NO.10944/2010 IN M.C. NO.88/2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA DATED 20/12/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT (CMP.10944/2010 IN M.C.88/2010) DATED 20/12/2010 FILED BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.930 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of directions to respondents 6 and 7 to afford police protection to him against unlawful acts of respondents 1 to 5 which allegedly cause threat to his life and person. 2.The 5th respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are his brothers-in-law. Respondents 3 and 4 are maternal uncles of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there is strain in the relationship between the petitioner and his wife, the 5th respondent. The other respondents who include his maternal uncles unrelated otherwise to the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent are indulging in contumacious, culpable and wanton violent conduct against the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that directions are sought. 3. Respondents 1 and 5 have entered appearance through counsel. They have a totally different version different from the WPC 930/2011 2 version advanced by the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial cruelty against the 5th respondent. A complaint has been filed. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime has been registered and investigation is in progress. The 5th respondent had suffered physical injury. She was forcibly driven out of the house. She was admitted to the hospital. After discharge from the hospital, she has returned to her house. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner, the 5th respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pala. Ext.P3 order was passed by the learned Magistrate under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner is engaged in a fraudulent attempt to dispose of the property including the residential building. Ext.P3 order restrains him from alienating the property and dispossessing the 5th respondent from the house situated in the property. He has also driven out his own mother from the house. Respondents 3 and 4 are the brothers of his mother. They are aggrieved by the improper conduct on the part of the petitioner. In the light of Ext.P3 order, the petitioner cannot be permitted WPC 930/2011 3 to avail police protection to dispose of the property. There is no chance of any attempt against the life and person of the petitioner. False allegations have been raised to enable the petitioner to implement his proposed scheme of driving out his mother, wife and children permanently from the house and alienate the same in violation of Ext.P3 order. The petitioner had gone to the civil court and secured an interim order of injunction. That order of injunction also clearly shows that the petitioner cannot interfere with the residence of the 5th respondent in the property. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the attempt of the petitioner to run away with an order of police protection from this court may not be permitted. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 6 and 7 submits that in the perception of respondents 6 and 7, there is no threat whatsoever to the life and person of the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the parties are before the civil court. They are before the Magistrate Court also under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. A crime under WPC 930/2011 4 Section 498A IPC has also been registered. There is nothing to show that the petitioner faces any threat from respondents 1 to 5, contends the learned Government Pleader. 5. Having anxiously rendered our attention to the totality of the circumstances, we are not persuaded to agree that there are any circumstances which justify invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction available to us under Article 226 of the Constitution. We are not persuaded to issue any directions in favour of the petitioner. This petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. srd