IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2199 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.SADHASIVAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANNANKUNJU, THAYYAPPURA HOUSE,HOUSE NO.A/66,POICKATTUSSERY CHENGAMANADU P.O.,NEDUMBASERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ERNAKUALM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SATHEESAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.SADHASIVAN,THAYYAPPURA HOUSE, KUNNIPILLISSERY,SHAPPUMPADY,PULIYANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683572 2. SAJEEV,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SADHASIVAN, THAYYAPPURA HOUSE,WARD 18 H.NO.105,POICKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU P.O., NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683578 3. SANEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SADHASIVAN, THAYYAPPURA HOUSE,WARD 18 H.NO.105,POICKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU P.O., NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683578 4. ASHOKAN,AGED 48 YEARS, THAYYAPPURA HOUSE,POICKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANADU P.O NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683578 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683578 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683102 ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE FOR R-2 GVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pm R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WPC No.2199 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking innocuous looking directions to respondents 5 and 6 to afford police protection to him against the wanton, high handed, culpable and violent conduct of respondents 1 to 4. He prays that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 may be invoked. 2. Counsel was requested to explain. The petitioner is the father of respondents 1 to 3. He is the brother of respondent No.4. Respondents 1 and 2 are married. Respondent No.3 is an unmarried son. Where is the wife of the petitioner, i.e. the mother of respondents 1 to 3? The petitioner now accepts that she resides with him in the house belonging to him. Originally, there was a house situated in a property belonging to the petitioner and his wife jointly. Later, the petitioner put up a house in the property belonging to him exclusively. There was some acrimony in the matrimony. The wife of the petitioner was WPC No.2199/2011 2 allegedly not permitted to enter the petitioner's new exclusive building. The sons were allegedly accommodated with the petitioner. As the sons grew up, they wanted their mother also to be with them. It is unnecessary to enter into that controversy, it is now admitted by the petitioner that his wife is now residing with the petitioner in the new house belonging to him exclusively. 3. It is not disputed now that the petitioner had filed a petition for divorce against his wife. The Family Court had turned down the prayer for divorce. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 who are married persons and respondent No.3 who is unmarried are all, with the connivance of his brother - the fourth respondent not permitting the petitioner to occupy and reside in his own house. They are guilty of violent, wanton and culpable conduct against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 4. Respondents 1 to 4 have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that there is absolutely no bonafides in the prayer of the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that WPC No.2199/2011 3 seeking identical reliefs, O.P.No.1852/2009 was filed before the Family Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner has cunningly and with great ingenuity not arrayed his wife as a party to this writ petition; whereas his wife has been arrayed as a respondent in O.P.No.1852/2009. The real dispute is attempted to be side tracked, contends counsel. There are disputes between the spouses. The petitioner does not want his wife to reside in the house. He is attempting to steal a march by not pressing for any order in O.P.No.1852/2009 and instead claiming relief in this petition by describing that his life is in danger. 5. It is significant that the petitioner is not simply claiming protection of his life. He wants to go to his property and exclude his children from the property. His children contend that the real attempt is to exclude the wife and that is why she has not been arrayed as a party in this petition. 6. We turned to the learned Government Pleader for instructions. The learned Government Pleader submits that in the perspective of respondents 5 and 6, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. There is dispute between the parties about the occupation of the WPC No.2199/2011 4 residential building. The petitioner, it appears, wants to exclude his wife and children from occupation of that building. The police do not want to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. Appropriate orders must be sought from the Civil Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is already before the Family Court with O.P.No.1852/2009 seeking identical relief. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat or if a complaint is made, police shall take the necessary action. The real purpose is not the protection of life or person, but the attempt is to exclude respondents 1 to 3 and their mother from the house without waiting for proper orders from the Family Court in O.P.No.1852/2009, submits the learned Government Pleader. 7. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We are not persuaded to agree that during the pendency of O.P.No.1852/2009 where identical relief has been claimed, any direction must be issued under Article 226 to achieve the same results which the petitioner seeks to achieve in O.P.No.1852/2009. 8. We, however, accept the submission of the learned WPC No.2199/2011 5 Government Pleader that if there is any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, complaint can be made before the police and if it is found to be genuine and reasonable, necessary action shall be taken by the police. We are not in these circumstances persuaded to issue any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner before closing the dictation submits that the petitioner has withdrawn O.P.No.1852/2009 on the ground of formal defect. No orders permitting withdrawal of the petition is produced. We do however accept the submission of the petitioner. If the said petition was suffering from any defect and the petitioner has been permitted to initiate fresh proceedings, the petitioner shall be at liberty to resort to such course. R.BASANT JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE css/