IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6334 of 2011(N) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- GANGADHARAN,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LEKSHMANAN, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKEPURAM PO, AYIROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. BALACHANDRAN ,AGED 53 YEARS, V.S NIVAS,PUNNEKULAM,PUTHUKULAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 6334/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/02/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.6334 of 2011-N ***************************** Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Petitioner, a 65 year old person, has come to this Court with this petition seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner from culpable and violent acts of the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he and his wife are peacefully residing in his house. His son has got married to the daughter of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is unnecessarily threatening the petitioner and his wife and is interfering with the peaceful residence of the petitioner and his wife in the property. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court claiming directions for police protection. 3. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has not revealed the entire truth. There is strain in the relationship between the petitioner's son and the 3rd respondents' daughter. The 3rd respondent's daughter has been obliged to go to the J.F.C.M, Varkkala seeking directions under W.P(C) No.6334 of 2011-N 2 the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court has granted directions in favour of the daughter of the 3rd respondent to permit her to reside in the house in which the petitioner resides. The petitioner and his family are guilty of improper conduct towards the daughter of the 3rd respondent. The daughter of the 3rd respondent is hence looking upto the 3rd respondent for support and patronage. The 3rd respondent is only helping his daughter in such litigation. This has irked the petitioner and that is why false allegations are raised against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has no intention to assault or cause any harm to the life or person of the petitioner. Undertaking to that effect may be recorded. The petitioner is not, in these circumstances, entitled to issue of any directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contends the 3rd respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that the police have received a complaint from the daughter of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, his wife, their son, ie. the husband of the 3rd respondent's daughter. Crime under Section 498 A I.P.C has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The police officials do not perceive W.P(C) No.6334 of 2011-N 3 any threat to the life and person of the petitioner or relatives from the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is giving support and patronage to his daughter, who is allegedly facing cruelty from her husband and in-laws. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader submits that no directions under Article 226 need be issued. If there be any threat against the life or person of the petitioner from the 3rd respondent, 1st and 2nd respondents shall take necessary action even without any specific direction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We accept the submission/undertaking of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent shall not cause any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, his wife or his son. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2, if there is any threat to the life or person of the petitioner and his relatives. But we are not persuaded to agree that any specific directions need be issued to respondents 1 and 2 against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, being the father of the daughter W.P(C) No.6334 of 2011-N 4 in law of the petitioner, is certainly entitled to visit his daughter and to afford support and patronage to his daughter who is continuing residence in the house of the petitioner on the strength of an interim order obtained from the court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no specific directions deserve to be issued. 6. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is dismissed; b) We record that in coming to this decision, we have heavily relied on the submission of respondents 1 and 2 that if there be any perceived threat against the petitioner or his relatives from the 3rd respondent, necessary action shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2 even without any specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/