IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35587 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- RAZIYA ANDIYATH, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.BEERAN ALI THIRUNILATH, PALAKKAL VEEDU, P.O.PANTHARANGADI BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 306. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRURANGADI MALAPPURAM DIST- 676 306. 4. THIRUNILATH BEERAN ALI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, PALAKKAL HOUSE P.O.,PATHARANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST- 676 306. 5. PALLIKKAL BEERANKUTTY AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.HASSANKUTTY PALLIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.PATHARANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST- 676 306. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 35587/2010(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/09/2009 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT. P2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE ACCOMPANYING PETITION. P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/09/2009. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAPPANANGADI. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(a):COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3064/09 DATED 08/07/2009 OF SRO, TIRURANGADI. R5(b):COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THIS DEPONENT IN W.P.(CRL) NO.329/2009 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. R5(c):COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/08/2009 IN W.P.(CRL.) NO.329/2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. R5(e):COPY OF EMIGRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for her against the alleged illegal, violent and culpable conducts of the 5th respondent. The 4th respondent is her husband. The 5th respondent is a friend of the 4th respondent. He is also the uncle's son of the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is employed abroad. The 5th respondent is available in India. The petitioner's daughter had fallen in love with a person and a petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus was filed before this Court. Ext.R5(d) is the judgment passed in that case. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is vexing, tormenting, harassing and indulging in objectionable conduct against the petitioner. She prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 1 to 3 to abate such hardship to her from the 5th respondent. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. They totally deny the allegations. The 4th respondent asserts that he W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 2 has already divorced the petitioner in accordance with law and that he has nothing more to do with the petitioner. According to the 4th and 5th respondents, the petitioner is residing in a house which belonged originally to the 4th respondent and which has later been transferred to the 5th respondent. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that in view of the divorce, the 4th respondent shall not proceed to the petitioner hereafter. The learned counsel on behalf of the 5th respondent accepts that both the 4th and 5th respondents shall not in any way cause any difficulties or hardship to the petitioner. They have not done so hitherto and shall not do so hereafter. False allegations of improper behaviour are being raised against the petitioner by respondents 4 and 5 with malicious motives, allege respondents 4 and 5. 3. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that at the moment, the police do not perceive any threat to the life of the petitioner or her person. If there be any such instance, the petitioner can complain and respondents 1 to 3 shall take necessary action. That undertaking may be recorded and proceedings may be closed, submits the learned Government Pleader. W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 3 4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 further submit that civil proceedings have already been initiated against the petitioner by the 5th respondent seeking recovery of the property in which the petitioner is residing, ie. O.S.No.242 of 2009 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that except to prosecute that litigation claiming recovery, they shall not in any way proceed to the property or cause any hardship to the petitioner. 5. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further specific directions are necessary. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 that respondents 4 and 5 shall not in any way proceed to the residence of the petitioner or cause hardship, inconvenience or harassment to the petitioner. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any such genuine complaint of contumacious and culpable acts on the part of respondents 4 and 5, respondents 1 to 3 shall afford necessary protection to the petitioner. We further specifically record the submission of respondents 4 and 5 that they shall not in any way cause obstruction to the residence of the petitioner in her W.P(C) No.35587 of 2010 4 present residence subject of course to the right of the 5th respondent to recover the property in accordance with law through the civil court. We further record that though the 4th respondent claimed that he has divorced the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been no divorce in accordance with law and the petitioner is unaware of and does not accept any such divorce. 6. We are not going into all the other disputes between the parties. We intend to express no opinion on those aspects. For the purpose of this case, we are satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued to respondents 1 to 3, as agreed. 7. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part as agreed. We accept the undertaking of respondents 1 to 3 that if there be any contumacious, culpable or violent acts on the part of respondents 4 & 5 against the petitioner, they shall afford necessary protection to the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/