IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 22850 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THAJUNNISA, W/O.LATE HASSANKUTTY RAWTHER, 58 YEARS, KUMBALAPANTHALIL HOUSE, KARIMBA POST, MANNARKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD-678 014. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD-678 582. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKAD POLICE STATION-678 582. 5. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.LATE HASSANKUTTY RAWTHER. 6. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.LATE HASSANKUTTY RAWTHER, ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R5 & 6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 22850 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 94/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKAD. EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IA 453/2009 IN O. S. 94/09 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKAD. EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN IA 453/09 IN O.S. 94/09 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKAD BY THE DEFENDANTS. EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION FILED BEFORE THE VANITHA CELL. PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA 631/09 IN O.S. 94/09 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT MANNARKAD. EXHIBIT P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA 631/09 IN O.S. 94/09 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKAD DT. 07.01.2010. EXHIBIT P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER PASSED IN IA 453/09 IN OS 94/09 DATED 23.02.2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, MANNARKAD. EXHIBIT P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE OF HAZANKUTTY. EXHIBIT P10 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.03.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.07.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 321/09 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. EXHIBIT P13 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 2490/09 IN OS 321/09 DATED 29.09.2009 OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM WITH SCHEDULE 57 TO 65. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 22850 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner, a woman aged 58 years has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the constitution seeking issue of directions to respondents 2 to 4 - Police officials under the first respondent State to afford protection to her life against contumacious, violent and culpable acts, which she apprehends from respondents 5 and 6, who are none other than her children. 2. According to the petitioner, respondents 5 and 6 are children born to her in late Hassankutty Rawther. Late Hassankutty Rawther had assigned property to her. She is in possession of such property. The dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 is about the partition of the property. Civil Court has granted order of injunction in their favour against commission of waste in the property during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner has 2 WP(C) No. 22850/2010 approached the civil court. She has obtained an order of injunction against trespass by respondents 5 and 6 into the property. 3. According to the petitioner in these circumstances, the parties have to be abide by the orders of the civil court with respect to the dispute regarding the property. Then what is the grievance of the petitioner? The petitioner is afraid of her children. Respondents 5 and 6 are threatening her to compel her to give up her rights in respect of the property and not to prosecute/defend the pending suits. This is the circumstance, which obliges the petitioner to come to this Court seeking directions under Article 226. 4. Respondents 5 and 6 have entered appearance through counsel. Counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 submits that respondents 5 and 6 have no intention of intimidating, threatening or indulging in any contumacious or violent acts against the petitioner. This undertaking may be recorded. There is absolutely no necessity to arm the petitioner with any order of police protection, contends counsel. 5. The learned Government Pleader after taking 3 WP(C) No. 22850/2010 instructions submits that, it is true that the petitioner has been complaining about the threat to her life and person and of contumacious and violent acts allegedly indulged in by respondents 5 and 6. Oral and written complaints have been received from the petitioner. If there be any thereat to the life or person of the petitioner, respondents 2 to 4 shall afford the requisite protection for the petitioner, contends the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have taken note of the relevant facts . Regarding the civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents the parties shall abide by the directions of the civil court. However considering the position in life of the petitioner -- 58 year aged mother of respondents 5 and 6 and taking note of the grievances raised by her, we are satisfied that genuine complaints about the threat to her life and person must be properly considered and necessary action taken by respondents 2 to 4. 7. We accept the submissions/undertaking on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6 that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or violent acts against the petitioner and that they shall not resort to any act to compel her to withdraw/not 4 WP(C) No. 22850/2010 prosecute the suit/civil proceedings. We accept the submissions of learned Government Pleader that if the petitioner has any complaint, she shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 2, 3 and 4 and appropriate and necessary action shall be taken by respondents 2 to 4 on such complaints to afford protection to the petitioner. 8. Accepting these submissions, this petition is allowed in part to the above extent. R BASANT JUDGE V CHITAMBARESH JUDGE dnc