IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14691 of 2011(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SHYLA, AGED 33, W/O. BINU, R/AT THAZHATHEKUDIYIL VEEDU, ADIMALI KARA, ADIMALI.P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI-685 561. 2. INDU BINU @ NIKITHA, AGED 15, D/O. BINU, R/AT THAZHATHDKUDIYIL VEEDU, ADIMALI KARA, ADIMALI.P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI-685 561. (MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, KOCHI-31. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALI-685 561. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALI POLICE STATION-685 561. 4. BINU.P.R., AGED 37, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, R/AT PUTHETHU HOUSE. PIN-685 561. 5. ANIL.P.R., AGED 38, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, R/AT PUTHETHU HOUSE, PIN-685 561. 6. JALAL KUNJUMON, AGED APPROXIMATELY 38, R/AT AKKOTH HOUSE, ADIMALI, VISHWADEEPTHI PADI, PIN-685 561. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R4 TO R6 BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SHEEJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.14691/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER & 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 9/6/2010. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(CRL)400/2010 DATED 4/1/2011. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.431/2011 IN O.P.NO.39/11 OF FAMILY COURT THODUPUZHA. P4 COPY OF THE MEMO SENT BY JFCM ADIMALI TO SHO ADIMALI DATED 18/5/2011. P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/5/2011 & AND ITS RECEIPT. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/5/2011 & AND ITS RECEIPT. P7 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/5/2011 & AND ITS RECEIPT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14691 of 2011-J ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners - a mother aged 33 years and a daughter aged 15 years, have come to this Court with this petition seeking police protection against contumacious, culpable and violent acts on the part of respondents 4 to 6. The petitioners seek police protection of their person and life. 2. The 4th respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner. The spouses are residing separately on the strength of Ext.P1 agreement, it is submitted. There were disputes about the custody of the 2nd petitioner - child. The child is in the custody of its mother - the 1st petitioner now. There is no dispute on that aspect. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent aided and assisted by his brother - the 5th respondent, and his friend - the 6th respondent, might attempt to forcibly take away the child from the custody of the 1st petitioner. 3. Respondents 4 to 6 have entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel submits that it is true that there is W.P.(C) No. 14691 of 2011 -: 2 :- a dispute between the 1st petitioner and the 4th respondent about the custody of the 2nd petitioner - child. The child was residing with the 4th respondent. But, at the moment, admittedly the custody is with the mother. It is also accepted that the mother has already gone to the Family Court and there is an interim order protecting the custody of the 2nd petitioner - child with the 1st petitioner - mother. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that the 4th respondent has no intention whatsoever of taking law into his hands, of snatching away the child from the custody of the 1st petitioner or in any way causing any trouble to petitioners 1 and 2. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 raises a further grievance that respondents 5 and 6, the brother and friend of the 4th respondent, have unnecessarily been arrayed as parties. It is categorically undertaken by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 that they shall not indulge in any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct against petitioners 1 and 2. The 4th respondent shall abide by the directions of the Family Court regarding the custody of the child. This undertaking may be recorded and further proceedings may be closed, submits the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6. The learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 submits that the W.P.(C) No. 14691 of 2011 -: 3 :- apprehension of respondents 4 to 6 is that any order of police protection granted by this Court may be mis-used and mis- utilised to vex and harass respondents 4 to 6 who are law abiding citizens. 5. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for instructions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perception of respondents 1 to 3, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners and there is no possibility of any attempt of snatching away the 2nd petitioner from the custody of the 1st petitioner. In these circumstances, no specific directions are necessary. If there be any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 6 against the life or person of the petitioners, they can complain to respondent No.2 and/or respondent No.3 whereupon such complaint, if genuine, shall be appropriately responded to and police protection shall be afforded to the petitioners, submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We do not think it necessary to issue any specific directions. 7. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on W.P.(C) No. 14691 of 2011 -: 4 :- behalf of respondents 2 and 3 that petitioners 1 and 2 shall be afforded adequate and sufficient protection if there be any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 6 against them. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge