IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1874 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MERCY, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.EDWARD, WORKING AS JOINT CHEMICAL EXAMINER, CHEMICAL EXAMINATION LABORATORY, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT "SAMPREETHY", KOTTIYAM P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.HARISH GOPINATH, MR.SHIBU GEORGE (KOLLAM). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. 4. JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE YOHANNAN RESIDING AT SAMPREETHY, KOTTIYAM PO, KOLLAM. 5. PREEETHI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MERCY, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA VEEDU, EDAVATHODU, KARIYAM, SREEKARYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. PREJITH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUGUNAN, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA EDAVATHODU, KARIYAM, SREEKARYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 1874 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Despite Ext.P1 complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Kollam, it is alleged that still there exists threat against the petitioner from the party respondents, who are none other than her husband, daughter and son-in-law. It is contended that the petitioner is not even allowed to go to her house. If that be so, her remedy is to take recourse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Then it is contended that she may be given protection at her work place. There is no complaint in Ext.P1 alleging any threat at her work place. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that in paragraph 7 of Ext.P1 that there is an averment that respondents visited her at her office at official hours and harassed her in the presence of her colleagues and this causes mental pressure. Thus, we find there is no physical W.P.(C) No. 1874/2010 2 threat alleged in paragraph 7 of Ext.P1 also. Further the date, on which the visit was made by the respondents, is also not stated. In the entices, we cannot give any protection as sought for based on Ext.P1. If there is any act of a physical threat, giving such details, she can approach the police and police will look into the same and take action, in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, we dismiss the writ petition. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mn.