IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20710 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ROSAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VARGHESE DANIEL, RIJU BHAVANAM, KAIPATTOOR P.O KOZENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. 3. RIJU VARGHESE, AGED 26 YEARS, KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, ATTACHACKAL, KOZENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689648. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20710 of 2011(K) I N D E X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(c) No.20710 of 2011-K ***************************** Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2, both police officials, to afford protection to the life and person of the petitioner against threat that she apprehends from the 3rd respondent, who is her own son. 2. Notice was ordered to respondent No.3. The 3rd respondent has not entered appearance. The learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. When the matter came up on 29.07.2011 for admission, the Bench which dealt with the matter had passed the following order: “Notice on admission by special messenger to R2 and R3. The Govt.Pleader takes notice for R1. Post 3.08.2011. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent is directed to look into Ext.P1 immediately and conduct enquiry and if the enquiry reveals that there is threat on the life of the petitioner, he will do whatever that is necessary for W.P(c) No.20710 of 2011-K 2 preventing any possible danger to the life of the petitioner from the 3rd respondent who is her own son.” 3. There is no appearance for the 3rd respondent. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat whatsoever against the life of the petitioner from the 3rd respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, it appears that there are no disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The learned Government Pleader particularly submits that the 3rd respondent's wife has filed a petition against him under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 and the said lady has secured some orders from the learned Magistrate entitling her to reside in the property which is now claimed to be occupied by the petitioner. 4. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there is no threat to the life of the petitioner from the 3rd respondent or from his wife. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that it is not necessary to issue any directions invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction available to W.P(c) No.20710 of 2011-K 3 us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner has any grievance against the order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is for her to seek appropriate relief from the court which passed the order or from the appellate court. We do not propose to arm the petitioner with any directions under Article 226, which may operate to the prejudice of the wife of the 3rd respondent who has not even been arrayed as a party to this proceedings. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat of violence, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. Now no such threat is perceived, submits the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 5. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/