IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5974 of 2011(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- FATHIMUTHU BEEVI, AGED 50, W/O.ABDUL MUTHALIF, KEEZHAYATHU PURAYIDAM, KUMBAZHA.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 695. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 5974 of 2011(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 25-09-09. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 25-09-09. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE NEWSITEM PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 13-02-2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 16-2-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:5974 OF 2011 V ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th March, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J. Petitioner, a woman has come to this Court raising the grievance that respondents 1 to 4 are indulging in acts of harassment against the petitioner. She prays that directions under Art.226 may be issued to respondents 1 to 4 to save her from the predicament. 2. According to the petitioner a woman aged 50 years, her husband is having a spell with another woman. He resides with that other woman. He is not living with her. Respondents 1 to 4 alleging that the husband of the petitioner is required to be arrested as the fifth accused in crime No: 149/2011 of Pathanapuram police station are indulging in acts of harassment against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that she has come to this Court. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader after taking instruction from respondents 1 to 4 submits that it is true that the petitioner's husband is required to be arrested. Police are attempting to WPC 5974/2011 2 effect such arrest. They are duty bound to effect such arrest. The husband of the petitioner is normally expected in the house of the petitioner. Therefore, necessary action has to be taken by the police to apprehend the petitioner's husband. Such efforts in accordance with law taken by respondents 1 to 4 cannot be described as acts of harassment. The learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 categorically asserts and undertakes that the petitioner shall not be called to the police station nor shall be the respondents indulge in any acts of harassment and vexation against the petitioner. But the attempt to trace the husband of the petitioner must and shall continue. Surveillance will have to be placed. It is expected that the petitioner's husband might visit the petitioner and it is hence that steps have been taken to effect the arrest of the petitioner's husband when he comes to the house of the petitioner. 4. We are satisfied in these circumstances that no specific directions deserve to be issued under Art.226. We accept the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner shall not be called to the police station and that police shall not indulge in any acts of vexation WPC 5974/2011 3 and harassment against the petitioner. 5. Recording the above submissions this writ petition is dismissed. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 5974/2011 4