IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31 of 2011(D) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, PEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. KUTTIYAMMA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE THOMAS, PEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BENNY GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, PEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 506. 2. SINDHU BENNY, W/O.BENNY GEORGE, PEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 506. 3. ROY GEORGE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST-686506. 4. JOHNSON GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE THOMAS, EDATHAMPARAMBU, PONKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST-686 506. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONKUNNAM-686 506. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PONKUNNAM-686 506. ...2/- WP(C).No. 31 of 2011(D) -2- 7. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANJIRAPALLY-686 507. 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM-686 001. 9. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY R5 TO R9 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 31 of 2011(D) -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS. 2, 1 AND THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 : PHOTOSTATE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5 TO 8 RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.31 of 2011 D ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The facts are strange and unfortunate. The first petitioner is a widower who has got remarried to the second petitioner. Respondents 1, 3 and 4 are his sons. All of them are grown up, married persons. Second respondent is the wife of the first respondent. While respondents 3 and 4 along with their respective families are residing in different houses, the first respondent, the second son is residing along with the petitioners under a common roof with his family. The remarriage of the first petitioner does not evidently have the approval of his children. Strain has developed between the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other. The second respondent had gone to the Domestic Violence Court and Ext.P2 settlement was reached in the said proceedings before the Magistrate. Still, harmony has not returned. It is the common case that the first petitioner has now executed a Will bequeathing his property - a four cents plot and residential building to his present wife, the second petitioner. Acrimony has developed and under the wpc No.31/2011 2 common roof, there is disputes, disharmony and fights. The petitioners have come to this Court with a prayer that respondents 5 to 9 may be directed to afford police protection to them. 2. Admittedly, petitioners 1 and 2 along with respondents 1 and 2 are residing under the common roof. A practical workable direction to grant police protection appears to be rather difficult. The parties must go to the civil court to get their disputes settled or settle their disputes harmoniously. However, after discussions at the Bar, it is submitted by the counsel for respondents 1 to 4 that they shall not in any manner cause any difficulties, harassment or vexation to petitioners 1 and 2. They can peacefully reside in the house provided they do not cause any disturbance and difficulties to respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No.1 has a case that the house in the property belongs to him as he has invested huge amounts for the construction/improvement of that house. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that in fact the problem is on the part of petitioners 1 and 2 who cause difficulties to respondents 1 and 2 who reside in the same house. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits wpc No.31/2011 3 that the petitioners are now prepared to accept the assertion/undertaking of the respondents that they shall not cause any hardship, vexation or difficulties to the petitioners in their residence under the common roof. If there be any complaint, the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 5 to 9 agree and accept that the needful shall be done by respondents 5 to 9 to give protection to the petitioners. Accepting the submissions of the counsel on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and the counsel on behalf of the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader, we close this proceedings. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed in part as agreed. A direction is issued to respondents 5 to 9 to afford protection to the petitioners in case there is any contumacious, culpable or violent conduct on the part of respondents 1 to 4 against the petitioners. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/