IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9520 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAJI, S/O.SIVANADHAN, PADKIYIL KIZHAKATHIL, KOOTTIKKADA, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 001 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 011 4. BINDU, D/O.SADANADHAN, THUPPATT VEEDU, KIZHEVOOR, THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 001 5. RENY, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KALLUVILLA, KOTTUMPURAM, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 571 6. SIVANKUTTY, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KESHAVANAGAR-66, VALATHUMGAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 018 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO.9520/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 08/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.9520 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court claiming issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal, contumacious and culpable conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 6. 2. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is his wife. He was employed abroad. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the fourth respondent has been leading a licentious life when he was employed abroad. Respondents 5 and 6, it is alleged, are the paramours of the fourth respondent who had illegal connection with the fourth respondent during the absence of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, during his absence, the fourth respondent was guilty of indiscriminate spending of money. The fifth and sixth respondents in collusion with the fourth respondent claim amounts from the petitioner WPC No.9520/2011 2 which is said to be the amount allegedly due from the fourth respondent to respondents 5 and 6 while the petitioner was employed abroad. The petitioner is in no way liable to repay the amounts allegedly due to respondents 5 and 6 from the fourth respondent. He may be afforded police protection against vexatious conduct on the part of respondents 4 to 6. 3. Respondents 4 to 6 though served have not chosen to enter appearance. We wanted the learned Government Pleader to take instructions. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of respondents 1 to 3, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. Respondents 4 to 6 were called to the Police Station and it is undertaken by them that they shall settle the dispute among themselves and that they shall not indulge in any contumacious or culpable conduct against the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no need to issue any directions. If there is any violation of the undertaking given by respondents 4 to 6 before the police officials and they indulge in any objectionable conduct against the petitioner, police shall afford him adequate protection, WPC No.9520/2011 3 submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. We are satisfied that no further specific directions under Article 226 are necessary in the circumstances of the case. This petition is in these circumstances dismissed, accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/