IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 32879 of 2010(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SINDHU, W/O.DAMODHARAN, VALAHALIL, VADEKKETHIL, VATHIKKULAM, THEKKEKKARA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.688001. 2. THE C.I OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. 690107. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA.690 107. 4. PUSHPARAJAN, S/O.KUTTI, VALAHALIL, VADEKKETHIL, VATHIKKULAM, THEKKEKKARA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. 690107. 5. ANILKUMAR, MEENATHETHILVEEDU, VATHIKKULAM, THEKKEKKARA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA.690 107. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.32879/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P2:- DIAGNOSIS RECORD OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 14.10.10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.32879 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 2 and 3 to afford police protection to them against illegal, contumacious and culpable acts of respondents 5 and 6. 2. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of an item of property purchased by her. Ext.P1 is the Possession Certificate in respect of that property. The petitioner is residing in that house along with her children. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 had an eye earlier on the property before purchase by the petitioner. They did not succeed and the petitioner succeeded. This is prompting respondents 5 and 6 to indulge in contumacious and culpable acts of threat, violence and vexation against the petitioner. With these allegations, the petitioner came to this Court claiming police protection. wpc No.32879/2010 2 3. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through counsel. Respondents 5 and 6 contend that the allegations are all false. As a matter of fact, the local persons have a complaint that immoral and objectionable activities are going on in the house of the petitioner where she resides along with her two daughters. Though she claims to be the wife of one Damodaran, there is no legal relationship between the said Damodaran and the petitioner. Local people are agitated about this and they have been raising complaints before the authorities. It is to steal a march over the persons of the locality who have raised such complaints against the petitioner that the present petition for police protection is filed. The learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that respondents 5 and 6 had no intention whatsoever to vex or harass the petitioner. They have only discharged their obligation as neighbours to complain about the objectionable activities that are allegedly going on in the locality. 4. The learned Government Pleader has entered appearance for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that on receipt of complaints, the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 were called to the police station. In wpc No.32879/2010 3 the perception of the police, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. It is true that there are certain complaints raised against the petitioner of improper and objectionable behaviour. Action, if any necessary shall be taken. At any rate respondents 5 and 6 shall not be permitted to take law into their hands or indulge in any contumacious or culpable activities against the petitioner. Necessary deterrent action shall be taken, if there be any such attempt against the life or person of the petitioner, undertakes the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the allegations of immoral and illegal conduct and behaviour of the petitioner are totally false. The petitioner has got married to Damodaran in accordance with law in November 2010 at the Althara Maha Deva Kshethram, it is submitted. Necessary steps have been taken to get the marriage registered in accordance with law, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We do not think it necessary to go in detail into the validity of the said alleged marriage between the petitioner and the said Damodaran. Whether the relationship between the wpc No.32879/2010 4 petitioner and Damodaran is legal or not, respondents 5 and 6 have no right to indulge in the alleged objectionable conduct indulged in by them. However, we accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 that respondents 5 and 6 shall not indulge in any objectionable conduct against the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any misconduct or behaviour on the part of respondents 5 and 6 in violation of the submission/undertaking made before this Court, necessary and adequate action shall be taken and protection shall be afforded to the petitioner. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no further specific directions are necessary in the matter. We accept the submissions of respondents 4 and 5. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. 7. This petition is accordingly allowed in part to the above extent. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/