IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12243 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K C KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI CHILANKA, PADINJATTE KIZHAKKE MURI SOORANADU NORTH PO, SOORANADU KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DIST. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM 3. SINI S., SINI NILAYAM, PADINJATTE KIZHAKKU SOORANADU NORTH PO, SOORANADU, KOLLAM 4. SAASIVAN PILLAI SINI NILAYAM, PADINJATTE KIZHAKKU SOORANADU NORTH PO, SOORANADU KOLLAM 5. SARALA, W/O. SADASIVAN PILLAI SINI NILAYAM, PADINJATTE KIZHAKKU SOORANADU NORTH PO, SOORANADU, KOLLAM 6. RAJESH, VAISHANAVAM, (KOTTAPADINJATTE MURI) SOORANADU NORTH PO, SOORANADU, KOLLAM G.P. SHRI P N SUKUMARAN, FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 12243 of 2010 E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for his life and for occupying the building in Re- survey No. 417/16 of Sooranad Village as against the threat from respondents 2 to 6 and their henchmen. 2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner purchased 14.56 Ares of land from the 4th respondent. He constructed a building therein. He got a job for his wife, the third respondent herein, by giving donation. Petitioner was living with his wife and daughter in the house constructed by him. Thereafter, the third respondent voluntarily left the home with the child. Petitioner filed a petition for divorce, which was W.P.(C).No. 12243 of 2010 2 allowed. The petition filed by the third respondent to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed. Thereafter she filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act. The allegation is that she was humiliated and ill-treated by the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections. The Magistrate Court, after considering the pleading and evidence, denied her prayer for maintenance. Now respondents 3 to 6 are not permitting the petitioner to enter and reside in his house. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Going by the contents of the Writ Petition and after hearing the counsel, we are of the view that the petitioner has to be relegated to pursue his remedy before the competent civil court or the Family Court, as the case may be. 5. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the competent forum this Writ Petition is disposed of. We however make W.P.(C).No. 12243 of 2010 3 it clear that if the petitioner makes out a case of commission of cognizable offence, action shall be taken in accordance with law. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm