IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20095 of 2010(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- DR.SANOOJ ABDUL RASHEED, S.S.COTTAGE, CHOORAPIKA, KARAMCODE P.O., CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.N.A.JOHN JACOB SRI.P.SANJAY SHENOI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. M.ABDUL SALIM, "SYMPHONY", CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 4. SHYLA SALIM, W/O.ABDUL SALIM, "SYMPHONY", CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 5. AMALA SALIM, D/O.ABDUL SALIM, "SYMPHONY", CHAVARA BRIDGE P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.20095 of 2010-J ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 29th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Ist respondent to take effective and adequate steps to stop the harassment being caused to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent. ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent that he does not have authority to compel the petitioner to divorce his wife or to settle the matrimonial issues between them on account of the complaint filed by the 5th respondent requesting the 2nd respondent to take necessary steps for getting divorce and settling the matrimonial disputes.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a Doctor. He married the 5th respondent. According to him his wife is against physical relation. It is stated that petitioner's wife and her mother circulated among the relatives and neighbors that he is impotent and is having premature ejaculation etc. The 3rd respondent made a representation before the Jama-ath WPC 20095/2010 -2- Committee. Petitioner filed reply. According to him, the Jama-ath Committee has rightly informed the 3rd and 5th respondents that the allegation of impotency and premature ejaculation is unsustainable. Now, the 3rd 4th and 5th respondents are frequently calling the petitioner over phone insisting him for divorce and it is stated that the 2nd respondent is also frequently calling the petitioner insisting to divorce the 5th respondent. It is stated that for the last two weeks the 2nd respondent has been threatening the petitioner that he would register a crime under Sec.498(A) IPC if he is not ready for divorce. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that a complaint is received from the 5th respondent alleging commission of crime under Section 498A IPC. There are other allegations also. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer sought in the present complaint is to compel the petitioner to divorce the 5th respondent and to settle the matrimonial dispute. Learned Government Pleader submits that there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent will compel him to divorce WPC 20095/2010 -3- his wife or to settle the matrimonial dispute on the basis of the complaint filed by the 5th respondent. He submits that it is when action was about to be taken by registering a crime on the basis of the petition filed by 5th respondent petitioner has approached this Court. If the parties are settling the issues, no crime will be registered, he submits. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent will not compel the petitioner to divorce his wife or to settle the matrimonial dispute on the basis of the complaint filed by the 5th respondent. We make it clear that it is open to the 2nd respondent if the situation so warrants to register a crime and investigate the same in accordance with law. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS