IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14746 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MARIAMMA VARGHESE, D/O.CHACKO VARGHESE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALIAKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. * ADDITIONAL P2 IMPLEADED * 2. VARGHESE, S/O. CHACKO, PALLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALIAKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA THALUK ADDITIONAL P2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/6/11 IN IA 9280/11. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERPINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA-689101. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689101. 4. VARGHESE P.V., PULIKKOOTTU MALABHAGATHU, CHRAPPURAYIDATHIL, PALIAKKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK-689101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14746/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1(a) : COPY OF THE O.P. TICKET DATED 22.05.2011 P1(b) : COPY OF THE O.P. TICKET DATED 22.05.2011 P1(c) : COPY OF THE O.P. TICKET DATED 22.05.2011 P2 : COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN O.S. NO.206/2011. P3 : COPY OF THE O.P. TICKET DATED 24.05.2011 P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.05.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(a) : COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MARRIAGE OFFICER DTD 16.04.2011 R4(b) : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.206 OF 2011 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT THIRUVALLA DATED 23.05.2011 R4(c) : THIRD PARTY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE BROTHER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2011. R5(a) : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9.11.2010. R5(b) : COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DOCUMENT NO.3514/2010 DATED 11.11.2010 R5(c) : COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION, IA NO.1654/11 DATED 09.06.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.14746 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner, a woman and her father, who has subsequently joined her as additional petitioner, seek directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection for the petitioners against contumacious and violent acts on the part of the 4th respondent which threaten the life and person of the petitioners. 2. The first petitioner is the daughter of the second petitioner. The 4th respondent is another son of the second petitioner i.e., brother of the first petitioner. The first petitioner has five children - three daughters and two sons. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent is guilty of contumacious conduct. The wife had left him. He claims to have married another woman, who already has a child. The second petitioner in these circumstances had executed Ext.R5(b) settlement deed conveying rights in their W.P.(C).NO.14746 OF 2011 : 2 : residential property to the first petitioner and her sister. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent now has no right to come to the house. A suit has been initiated by the first petitioner against the 4th respondent. As in this case, the second petitioner has subsequently wanted to join the first petitioner as a co-plaintiff. Such application for impleadment is pending. 3. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent is posing danger to the life and person of the petitioners. It is in these circumstances prayed that directions under Article 226 may be issued. 4. The 4th respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The 4th respondent contends that he is residing in the same house. An attempt was made to throw the 4th respondent out of possession. He has resisted such an attempt. A suit has been filed claiming an order of injunction restraining the 4th respondent from entering the property. The civil court was not inclined to grant such an order of injunction as prayed for. At present, an interim order of injunction against commission of waste alone has W.P.(C).NO.14746 OF 2011 : 3 : been passed. As the petitioners did not succeed in implementing their scheme with the help of the orders of the civil court, they have now come to this Court to secure an order of protection to steal a march over the 4th respondent in the civil litigation. According to the 4th respondent, the document executed is not valid or genuine. It is in these circumstances prayed that no directions need or deserve to be issued. 5. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners have raised an allegation that the 4th respondent has indulged in criminal conduct against them. A crime has been registered and it is being investigated. The learned Government Pleader submits that protection against the life and person of the petitioners can be granted, if there be any such threat to their life and person. However, the dispute regarding property may be left to be resolved by the civil court. The police do not want to intervene in such disputes, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners as also the W.P.(C).NO.14746 OF 2011 : 4 : 4th respondent submit that they shall seek appropriate directions from civil court in respect of the dispute regarding property and the alleged right of the 4th respondent to reside in the house in the property. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent has no intention to indulge in any violent conduct against the petitioners and other relatives of the petitioners i.e., the mother of the first petitioner and the sister of the first petitioner. 7. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that police shall not intervene in the civil dispute between the parties, but adequate protection shall be given to the life and person of the petitioners, if there be any such threat emanating from the 4th respondent. We are satisfied that accepting the submissions, this petition can now be disposed of. 8. In the result: a. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the 4th respondent does not intend to indulge in contumacious, culpable or violent conduct W.P.(C).NO.14746 OF 2011 : 5 : against the petitioners or the sister and mother of the first petitioner. We further accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that acts of violence, if any, on the part of the 4th respondent against the petitioners shall be prevented by the police and appropriate action shall be taken. b. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no further specific directions under Article 226 are necessary. c. Accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, this petition is dismissed. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /True copy/ P.S. to Judge. cl