IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7278 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, KUDAKKACHIRAKUNNEL HOUSE, MOTHIRAKKANNY DESOM,PARIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MARY THOMAS, W/O.JOSEPH THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS,DO. DO. BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU SRI.N.M.SIYAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN 680 307. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN 680 307. 3. NIMMY K.SIMON,D/O.SIMON,ILLIKAL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL PO, ELOOR FERRY 683 501. 4. JOSY,PADATHURUTHY HOUSE,DO. DO. 5. KASPER,PADATHURUTHY HOUSE, DO. DO. 6. LILLY,W/O. JAMES,ILLIKAL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL PO, ELOOR FERRY 683 501. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R3 - 6 BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.R.REKESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SMT R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7278 of 2011-H ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioners - spouses, have come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to their person, life and property from the wanton culpable and violent acts of respondents 3 to 6. 2. The 3rd respondent is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners. It appears that the petitioner's son had initiated proceedings for divorce before the Family Court. That claim for divorce has been dismissed. An appeal has been preferred by the son of the petitioners. That appeal is pending before this Court. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the said divorce proceedings, respondents 3 to 6 are indulging in W.P.(C) No. 7278 of 2011 -: 2 :- culpable, contumacious and violent conduct against the petitioners. The house in which the petitioners reside belongs to the 2nd petitioner and respondents 3 to 6 have no semblance of right to trespass into the house where the petitioners reside or indulge in any contumacious conduct. In these circumstances, it is prayed that directions may be issued under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3. Respondents 3 to 6 have entered appearance. Respondents 4 to 6 are the relatives of the 3rd respondent. It is contended that all the allegations are false. According to them, the son of the petitioners is willing for re-union. He loves the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent loves him. But unfortunately the petitioners are against a harmonious relationship between their son and the 3rd respondent. They are unnecessarily creating problems. They have filed a civil suit also and the same is pending before the civil court claiming an injunction against the respondents. Entry/trespass in the house of the petitioners is sought to be injuncted. That petition is pending. Respondents 3 and 6, who are parties in that suit are raising their contentions in the said suit against them. According to the 3rd respondent, she has a right of residence along with him in the house of her husband where he permanently resides. In any W.P.(C) No. 7278 of 2011 -: 3 :- view of the matter, the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution may not be invoked against the 3rd respondent, submits the counsel. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2, submits that in the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioners. It is true that a complaint has been lodged before the police by the 1st petitioner. Investigation has revealed that the allegations raised in the said complaint are not true. In the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is no necessity to issue any directions under Art.226 of the Constitution. If there be any threat to the life of the petitioners, the police shall be taking necessary action, submits the learned Government Pleader. Since parties are already before the civil court, they may be directed to abide by the orders of the civil court in regard to the property rights, submits learned Government Pleader. The 3rd respondent has not so far initiated proceedings claiming that the permanent residence of her husband is her shared household. 5. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are in agreement with the learned Government Pleader that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the W.P.(C) No. 7278 of 2011 -: 4 :- invocation of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The petitioners are already before the civil court and at this juncture we do not think it necessary to issue any directions. We take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that any threat to the life or person of the petitioners shall be adequately responded to by respondents 1 and 2. We accept the said submission. We are satisfied that no further directions are necessary. 6. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge