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 JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14329 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HAMSA, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.MAMMED, THERUVATHU HOUSE, PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION,CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 3. M.K.SHABEEB, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.HAMSA THERUVATHU HOUSE,PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 . (DELETED) 4. M.K.NABEEZU, AGED 64, W/O.HAMSA, THERUVATHU HOUSE,PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM CHAVAKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 . 5. SHAILA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.NALAKATH KUTTIKATTIL MOIDUNNY, PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 . 6. SEFREENA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.IQBAL, PUNNA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 506 . P.T.O. -: 2 :- 7. ABU, S/O.MAMMED, THERUVATHU HOUSE CHAKKUMKANDAM PO, GURUVAYOOR 680 522. R3 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/6/2011 IN I.A. NO.10062 OF 2011. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA. ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR 4,5,6-7 SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN FOR R4-7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE ON THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //true copy// P.S. to Judge R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14329 of 2011-M ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner - a person aged about 71 years, has come to this Court with this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution claiming issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to him to enable him to peacefully reside in his house against illegal obstructions that are raised by respondents 3 to 7. Respondents 3 to 7 are his son aged 34 years, his wife aged 64 years, his daughters aged 42 years and 35 years and his brother. 2. According to the petitioner, dissatisfied with the attention that he gets from his 64 year old wife, he has been constrained to contract a marriage again. Such marriage is permitted under the Personal Law. His wife and children and his own brother are raising objections against such marriage of the petitioner. Consequently, they are not permitting him to reside in the house belonging to him. He faces threat to his life W.P.(C) No.14329 of 2011 -: 2 :- and person. He has committed no crime. He has only married again because he was not able to get the kind of attention and care which he expects from a wife. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Respondents 4 to 7 have entered appearance through counsel. The 3rd respondent is now said to be abroad and that the respondent, the son of the petitioner was subsequently deleted from the array of parties. 4. According to respondents 4 to 7, there is no legal marriage. The petitioner, who was found in an ugly situation - having a relationship with a home nurse who was brought to the house. His case that he got married to another is not true or justified. All friends, relatives and son of the petitioner are raising objections to that relationship of the petitioner. The attempt of the petitioner is to bring that woman into the house. That is resisted. There is no attempt at all to cause any harm or threat to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the petitioner had attempted to throw his 64 year old wife out of the residential building. That was resisted by others. She was obliged to go to the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. An interim order has also been passed in the matter. It is at this W.P.(C) No.14329 of 2011 -: 3 :- juncture that the petitioner has come to this Court to steal a march over the respondents in his attempt to come to the house with that woman with whom he has allegedly contracted a second marriage and also to vex and harass his wife and children. 5. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner or his residence in his house. There evidently are disputes between the parties consequent to the alleged relationship/marriage of the petitioner at the age of 71 years. That is really the bone of contention. According to the police, there is no threat whatsoever posed by respondents 4 to 7 against the petitioner. 6. We must alertly remind ourselves of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction that we are called upon to invoke and exercise. It is now admitted that the second wife so called (we do not want to enter into that controversy as to whether there is legal marriage or not) is not residing in the house occupied by the 4th respondent/first wife. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions should be issued by us to facilitate such residence of the petitioner along with his second wife in that house. We are not persuaded to agree that any specific W.P.(C) No.14329 of 2011 -: 4 :- directions in favour of the petitioner alone also need be issued invoking our jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. This, we feel, is an eminently fit case where the parties must be left to approach the civil court to get their disputes resolved. We have intended to express no opinion on the right of residence of the petitioner in the house belonging to him. We need only mention that it is for the parties in a case like this to get their disputes resolved by approaching the civil court. We are not, at any rate, persuaded to invoke our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.226 in favour of the petitioner. 7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. We reiterate that we have not intended to express any opinion on the right of the petitioner to reside in the house in question. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge