IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29248 of 2010 (E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. IBRAHIM @ SHEKKEER,S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 32 YEARS,POOLAKKANDY HOUSE,KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM NARAVOOR,DESOM,THALASSERY TALUK. 2. POOLAKANDY HANEEFFA,S/O.USMAN(LATE), AGED 30 YEARS,POOLAKKANDY HOUSE,KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM NARAVOOR DESOM,THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN SRI.T.P.SAEED SRI.E.M.UNNIKRISHNAN (MANJERI) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, P.O.KUTTIPURAM 678647. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 678642. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.670642. 4. YOUSEPH,S/O.MOIDUKUTTY,AGED 38 YEARS, VALANCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.PAINGANNUR.678 644. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP(C) No.29248 of 2010-E ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 28th September 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. Having regard to the nature of the directions being issued hereunder, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent. Accordingly, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with, reserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if he is aggrieved. 2. The first petitioner is a 32 year old, apparently illiterate person, who has given his left thumb impression on the memorandum of this Writ Petition. He has three wives and five children through all the three. There appears to be a tussle between the wives for co-habitation with the first petitioner. The second petitioner is stated to be the brother of one of the wives and the fourth respondent is stated to be the brother of yet another wife. The petitioners apprehend that the Sub Inspector of Police of Kuttipuram Police Station is likely to force the first petitioner to go with the fourth respondent. WPC No.29248/10 2 3. The learned Government Pleader states that the petitioners' apprehension could be groundless because there is a complaint filed by Nadeera, the second wife of the first petitioner, which has been registered by the Kuttipuram police and that the first petitioner has necessarily to be questioned, if found necessary, during the course of the investigation. He, however, says that there is no complaint as of now before the Kuthuparamba Police Station. 4. The aforesaid scenario prompted us to ask the first petitioner through his counsel as to whether there are proceedings in the family court or civil court or under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or any other law, in between the first petitioner and his wives. The answer is in the negative. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, we direct the first petitioner to appear before the second respondent Superintendent of Police, Malappuram, who will make an endeavour to find out whether there is any situation, warranting supervisory administrative instructions to the subordinates. If found necessary, such WPC No.29248/10 3 directions will be issued. If that Officer finds it necessary to issue any such lawful directions, that would also be issued and the petitioner shall abide by such directions. Let the second respondent do the necessary, in terms of this Judgment, within a period of two weeks from now. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC No.29248/10 4