IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13676 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. T.V.SASIKUMAR,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.N.VELAYUDHAN, SUSEELA SADANAM, ANACKAL.P.O,KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SUSEELA.S.KUMAR,W/O.T.V.SASIKUMAR, SUSEELA SADANAM,ANACKAL.P.O,KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY-686507. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION,KANJIRAPPALLY, PIN-686507. 4. KUTTIAMMA APPAVU PILLAI,KULIRUPLACKAL HOUSE,VIZHIKKATHODU,CHENAPPADY.P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502. 5. GEETHA SIVAN PILLAI,KOLLAM PARAMBIL HOUSE,S.N.PURAM,KOOROPPADA,PAMPADY,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502. 6. SHYAM KUMAR,KOLLAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N.PURAM,KOOROPPADA,PAMPADY,KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502. ADV. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R4-6 MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R4-6 MS.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM FOR R4-6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13676 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: SALE DEED DATED 29.8.2002. EXT.P2: RECEIPT DATED 15.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD. EXT.P3: BUILDING PERMIT NO.14/07-08 DATED 28.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PARATHODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALONG WITH THE SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN. EXT.P4: LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.3245194 DATED 5.4.2011. EXT.P5: RENT DEED DATED 25.4.2011. EXT.P6: ORDER DATED 12.5.2011 PASSED BY THE J.FC.M-I, KANJIRAPPALLY IN C.M.P.NO.1949/2011 IN M.C.NO.26/2011. EXT.P7: COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO.77 DATED 20.11.2000 ISSUED BY THE PARATHODE PANCHAYATH. EXT.P9: BUILDING TAX RECEIPT NO.30 DATED 17.5.2011. EXT.P10: ORDER DATED 23.5.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.M.C.NO.1458/2010. EXT.P11: COMPLAINT DATED 23.5.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE J.F.CM, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P12: COMPLAINT DATED 27.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COMPLAINT DATED 12.5.2001 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE J.F.CM, KANJIRAPPALLY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4: 1ST AND 2ND PAGE OF THE RATION CARD OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 24.12.2008. ------- // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.13676 Of 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Petitioners 1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively. The 4th respondent is the mother of the wife. The 5th respondent is the sister of the second petitioner and daughter of the 4th respondent. The 6th respondent is the son of the 5th respondent. 2. The petitioners have come to this Court seeking police protection against respondents 4 to 6. They pray that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to them against culpable and contumacious conduct of respondents 4 to 6. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent mother was not residing with them in the house in question. But she has secured Ext.P6 interim order from the learned Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Armed with that order, the 4th respondent has come to the premises and is occupying a shop room in the property. It is the case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent had executed a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner assigning her rights in the property to the second ::2:: W.P.(C).No.13676 Of 2011 petitioner. According to the petitioners, the second petitioner has subsequently modified the building and at the moment there is residential building with two shop rooms as part of that building. It is the case of the petitioners that their mother, the 4th respondent, as well as the respondents 5 & 6 are indulging in culpable and contumacious acts against the petitioners. Police protection is claimed by the petitioners in these circumstances. 3. Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance through counsel. According to the learned counsel the boot is on the other leg. 4th respondent was peacefully residing in the house. The house belongs to her. They deny the allegation that there was a genuine assignment of property by the 4th respondent in the name of the second petitioner. But when the 4th respondent was sought to be thrown out, she approached the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate had issued Ext.P6 interim direction. An attempt was made by the petitioners to challenge that interim direction and by Ext.P10 order passed by a Bench (Single Judge) of this Court, the petitioners have been directed to seek relief by filing appeal or approaching the learned Magistrate for clarification. That course has not been followed. ::3:: W.P.(C).No.13676 Of 2011 4. Undoubtedly, as per Ext.P6 order the 4th respondent was allowed to reside in the shared household. The number of the building is also specified in Ext.P6 order. In these circumstances, the right of the 4th respondent to reside cannot possibly doubted at this stage without challenging or seeking clarification for Ext.P6 order. 5. The only other submission is that the respondents 5 & 6 who have no right under Ext.P6 order are also causing difficulties to the petitioners. Respondents 5 & 6 stoutly deny this allegations. 4th respondent, aged mother/grandmother of respondent 5 & 6 is residing in a hostile environment and it is the duty of the respondents 5 & 6 to satisfy the needs of the 4th respondent as and when required. Respondents 5 & 6 are only discharging this duty. They shall not cause any difficulties and shall not indulge in culpable or contumacious conduct against the petitioners. In these circumstances, no directions for police protection are necessary. Respondents 5 & 6 undertake that they shall not indulge in such culpable or contumacious acts. 6. The learned Government Pleader after getting instructions from respondents 1 to 3 submits that in the ::4:: W.P.(C).No.13676 Of 2011 perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life and person of the petitioners. If respondents 5 and 6 indulge in culpable and contumacious acts against the petitioners, necessary action shall be taken by the police. The learned Government Pleader submits that two crimes have already been registered against the petitioners on the complaints of respondents 4 & 5. 7. We also take note of the contention of the respondents 4 to 6 that the petitioners are permanently residing at Thiruvananthapuram. Their children are also residing there and were educated there, it is submitted. According to respondents 4 to 6, petitioners have come to the property in question where the 4th respondent is residing only for the purpose of vexing and harassing the 4th respondent. 8. We do not intend to express any opinion on the contested issues. As held by the learned Single Judge in Ext.P10, it is for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P6 interim direction in accordance with law or seek further directions from the learned Magistrate acting under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to issue ::5:: W.P.(C).No.13676 Of 2011 any specific directions. In coming to this conclusion, we take note of the submission of respondents 4 to 6 that they shall not indulge in any culpable and contumacious acts and the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there is any such culpable and contumacious acts on the side of respondents 4 to 6 the police shall take appropriate action. 9. Accepting the submissions and with the above observations, this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. bkn/-