IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23441 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.MOOSAKUTTY, AGED 75 YEARS, RETIRED HEAD CONSTABLE, KHADAR BHAVAN, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. NAFEESA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.MOOSAKKUTTY, RETIRED HEAD MISTRESS, KHADAR BHAVAN, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ BINDU C.G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.68553 2. IBRAHIMKUTTY, ZAHIDA MANZIL, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., KUTHIYATHODU, CHERTHALA FROM ANTHROLIPPARAMBU HOUSE, ASHOKA PURAM, ALUVA.68553 3. NISHAMOL, ALIAS NISAMOL AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, ZAHIDA MANZIL, KUTHIYATHODU P.O., KUTHIYATHODU, CHERTHALA FROM ANTHROLIPPARAMBU HOUSE, ASHOKA PURAM, ALUVA. 4. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA ( IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 2/9/2011 IN WP (C). ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R2 & R3 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR R2 & R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23441/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS; EXT.P1: COPY OF DIVORCE PETITION AS OP 338/2010 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P2: COPY OF INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 19/2/2011 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT CHRTHALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19/8/2011 LODGED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 23441 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, are senior citizens. The 3rd respondent is their daughter-in-law being the wife of their only son by name Abdul Sathar. The 2nd respondent is the father of the 3rd respondent. The petitioners have approached this court seeking direction for police protection for their lives and free movement. They allege that respondents 2 and 3, who are residing in a rented building situated nearby, come to their house every now and then and gives them all sorts of trouble, as a result of which a peaceful life has become extremely difficult for them. 2. On considering this writ petition for admission, notice was ordered to respondents 2 and 3 by special messenger and we directed the first respondent- Station House Officer, Kuthiyathodu Police Station within whose limits the petitioners WPC.No.23441/2011 2 reside, to conduct an immediate enquiry into Ext.P3 petition filed by the petitioners. He was specifically directed to enquire into the claim of the petitioners that their son Sri.Abdul Sathar is residing along with them. It was also directed that if enquiry reveals that there is truth in the apprehension of the petitioners regarding possible danger to their lives, the first respondent shall take such action as is necessary for averting danger to the lives of the petitioners. 3. On 2/9/2011 the party respondents entered appearance through advocate Sri.V.Rajendran. Mr.Rajendran submitted that Sri.Abdul Sathar, son of the petitioners, and Smt.Nishamol (3rd respondent) continue to love each other and both of them are desirous of having family life together. According to Mr.Rajendran, it is due to unnecessary intervention of the petitioners that the relationship between Sri.Abdul Sather and the 3rd respondent is not as cordial as it should be. 4. The learned Government Pleader Sri.T.K.Vipindas informed us that the claim of the petitioners that Sri.Abdul Sathar is residing along with them is not correct. Though Sri. Abdul Sathar was residing along with the petitioners, at present WPC.No.23441/2011 3 his whereabouts are not known. In view of the above submissions of the learned Government Pleader, we suo motu impleaded the District Police Chief, Alappuzha as additional 4th respondent and passed an order directing the additional 4th respondent to produce Sri.Abdul Sathar, son of the petitioners' before this court at 10.15 a.m. on 7/9/2011. The petitioners were also directed to be present before this court at the same time. 5. Today Sri.Abdul Sathar was produced before us by the additional 4th respondent. The petitioners and party respondents were also present before us. We talked at some length to Sri.Abdul Sathar. We talked with respondents 2 and 3 also. It was revealed from the conversation which we had with Sri.Abdul Sathar and also with the party respondents that the petitioners are residing all alone in the first petitioner's house at Kuthiyathodu and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are residing in a rented building belonging to a relative of the petitioners who is having certain property disputes with the first petitioner. We are convinced that relationship between Sri.Abdul Sathar and the 3rd respondent has become strained to a considerable extent and WPC.No.23441/2011 4 that litigations are pending before the Civil Court including the Family Court seeking appropriate reliefs. 6. The only question arising for consideration in this writ petition is whether the police protection direction sought for by the petitioners should be granted. Respondents 2 and 3 told us that they have no intention to go to the house where the petitioners are residing. They have no intention either to threaten the petitioners. We feel that in the present situation, where the petitioners are residing all alone in their house and respondents 2 and 3 are residing in a rented building situated not far away, and as the relationship between Sri.Abdul Sathar son of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent is very much strained, respondents 2 and 3 do not have to go to the house where the petitioners are residing. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to give adequate protection to the lives of the petitioners and also to the peaceful living of the petitioners in their house in case it is reported to him by the petitioners that there is threat or any interference by respondents 2 and 3 or anybody acting under them to their peaceful lives. We make it WPC.No.23441/2011 5 clear that nothing stated in this judgment shall cause any prejudice to either party in the litigations in respect of matrimonial and other disputes between Sri.Abdul Sathar and the 3rd respondent. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk