IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 10226 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- REETHA, MINU VILASAM, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM 3. JOY, S/O.SOLY, VILAYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM 4. JOSE, S/O.SOLY, VILAYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM 5. SOLY, VILAYILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM 6. DIAS, S/O.DIANATIOUS, VELIVILA VEEDU, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM 7. SHIBU, S/O.JACOB, SHEENA BHAVAN, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM 8. KOCHANI, SABU VILASAM, KUMBALAM, KUNDARA, KOLLAM R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.NAZAR. R3 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 10226OF 2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.3.2010. EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF GODFREE HENRY. EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE WOUND CERTIFICATE OF CLEETUS. EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.NO.182/2009. EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE SAID WRIT PETITION (CRL) NO.95/2009 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.10226 of 2010-C ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:-- “to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction compelling and commanding the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to give adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her husband, son-in-law and other members of her family from the respondents 3 to 8 and their henchmen.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. The 3rd respondent is the son-in-law of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent's wife eloped with somebody. There is reference to the Habeas Corpus proceedings in this regard to contend that the wife of the 3rd respondent went on her own. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is under the impression that the petitioner's elder daughter's husband Godfree and the petitioner's husband Cletus were helping the said elope. There are allegations about assault and trespass. There is also reference to crimes registered. WPC 10226/2010 -2- 3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her husband, son-in-law, and the elder daughter of the petitioner as against any threat from respondents 3 to 8 and their henchmen. We make it clear that we are not pronouncing on the contentions of the parties which are pending consideration before any forum and we leave those contentions open. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS