IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 27437 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VILASINI AMMA, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, GIRIJA BHAVANAM, NORTH KOCHU MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 526. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM, PIN-690 502. 4. GEETHA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJASEKHARA PILLAI, GIRIJA BHAVANAM, NORTH KOCHU MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 527. 5. BALACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, SAUPARNIKA, NORTH KOCHU MURI, PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 527. 6. PRASANNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, SANKARAMANGALAM HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH MURI, THRIPUNITHURA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 528. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. KARISMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27437/2010 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 22/08/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S 23(2) OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLANCE ACT, 2005 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC KAYAMKULAM DTD. 1/06/2010. R4A: COPY OF THE WILLDTD. 1/06/2010 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. R4B: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.202/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM. R4C: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. R4D: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.255/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.27437 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate, sufficient and meaningful protection to the life and property of the petitioner from the respondents 4 to 6; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate and effective steps/action is pursuant to Ext.P1 in accordance with law; 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner, a woman aged 73 years, is a retired school teacher. 4th respondent is the wife of the petitioner's son late Rajasekara Pillai. 5th respondent is the second son of the petitioner. 6th respondent is the brother of the 4th respondent. The petitioner is residing in a house having an extent of 10.9 Ares belonging to late Rajasekara Pillai under a partition deed. W.P.C.No.27437 of 2010 2 In terms of specific recital in the partition deed, the petitioner is enabled to reside in the building and she has every right to reside there. There is reference to late Rajasekara Pillai's illness and that the 4th respondent was not looking after him. Further, there is an allegation that the 4th respondent has brought the 6th respondent to the residential building and they are threatening and harassing the petitioner. There is also an allegation against the 5th respondent, the second son of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits as follows: A complaint was received from the petitioner. On the basis of Ext.P1 complaint, the petitioner, the 4th respondent and her brother were summoned. They were directed not to cause any harassment to the petitioner. A complaint was also received from the 4th respondent that the grandson of the petitioner had manhandled the 4th respondent and a crime has been registered against the grandson of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner and civil cases are pending. The learned counsel for the 4th W.P.C.No.27437 of 2010 3 respondent would also submit that civil cases are pending and the 4th respondent had no intention to threaten the petitioner and she will not threaten the petitioner. She would submit that the property belongs to late Rajasekara Pillai, her husband and she is residing in the property. She further submits that the 6th respondent, her brother, is not residing with her. 5. We record the submissions of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that she will not threaten the life of the petitioner in any manner. If a complaint is received from the petitioner of any threat from respondents 5 and 6 before the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent will look into the same and if the threat is found to be genuine, the 3rd respondent will afford protection to the life of the petitioner as against respondents 5 and 6. 6. This judgment will not stand in the way of civil court/forum proceeding to dispose of the cases filed by the parties untrammeled by anything contained in this judgment. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.27437 of 2010 4 W.P.C.No.27437 of 2010 5 W.P.C.No.27437 of 2010 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010