IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17115 of 2011(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. A.V.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.MADAVAN NAIR. 2. SULOCHANA AMMA, W/O.CHANDRASHEKARAN NAIR. 3. SATHEESH, S/O.CHANDRASHEKARAN NAIR, AMBADI VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THEKKANKUTTOOR (PO), PIN 676 551, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 501. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 503. 5. JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASHEKARAN. 6. KOMALAVALLI, W/O.JAYACHANDRAN, RESPONDENTS 5 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT AMBADI VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THEKKANKUTTOOR (PO), PIN 676 551, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 O R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R6 BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17115/2011 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE WOMEN'S COMMISSION DTD. 16/05/2011. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONER AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 DTD. 11/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.17115 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioners have come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police. The first petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner and third petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner. The 5th respondent is another son of the 2nd petitioner. 6th respondent is his wife. According to the petitioners, 5th and 6th respondents are staking a claim over the tharavadu property of the petitioners and the 5th respondent. There are other sharers also. Respondents 5 and 6 have no right to compel the petitioners or other sharers to assign any portion of the property to them. The total extent is only 32 cents. According to the petitioners, the police are unnecessarily obliging respondents 5 and 6, who are compelling the petitioners to execute document in favour of the 5th respondent. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come to this Court complaining of harassment by the police. They seek directions under W.P.(C).NO.17115 OF 2011 : 2 : Article 226 to put an end to such harassment. 2. Respondents have been served. The 6th respondent alone has entered appearance. She has a different version to advance. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the 5th respondent is addicted to alcohol and in sheer helplessness, the 6th respondent to pull on her life only demands some arrangement to be made and it is incorrect to say that the 6th respondent has in any way prevented upon the police for harassing the petitioners. This attempt on the part of petitioners 1 to 3 in collusion with the 5th respondent is only to deter the claim of the 6th respondent, submits the learned counsel. The counsel prays for time to file a counter affidavit. 3. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for submissions. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is only a civil dispute between the parties for partition of the family property in which the petitioners and 5th respondent are sharers. The 6th respondent demands such partition to secure her interests in the wake of the alleged irresponsible attitude of the 5th respondent. The W.P.(C).NO.17115 OF 2011 : 3 : police have no intention to help any one of the parties. Parties have been advised by the police to take the matter to the civil court and get their civil dispute resolved. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that there shall be no action on the part of respondents 2 to 4 to harass the petitioners to compel them to execute any document in favour of the 5th respondent. The stand of the police is clear. Parties must get their civil dispute resolved by initiating proceedings before civil court. 4. We record all the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no further specific directions under Article 226 are necessary. We do not think it necessary in these circumstances to adjourn the case to enable the 6th respondent to file counter affidavit incorporating her contentions. We make it clear that the right of the 6th respondent to stake claim against her husband - the 5th respondent and his properties shall remain unfettered by this order. 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the W.P.(C).NO.17115 OF 2011 : 4 : above observations. Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.S. to Judge.