IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21340 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SARASWATHY, W/O. LATE RAJENDRAN PILLAI, VELUVIDANDA VEEDU, PARAVOOR.P.O., KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM-691572. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM – 691 301. 3. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, PREETHI QUARTERS PALAYAM KUNNU, KOVOOR, NOW RESIDING AT VELUVIDANDA VEEDU, PARAVOOR.P.O., KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691301. 4. SATHY DEVI AMMA, THUNDIL VEEDU, PARAVOOR, KOTTAPPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT VELUVIDANDA VEEDU, PARAVOOR.P.O., KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691301. 5. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, CHATHANNOOR THAZHAM, G.K.HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT VELUVIDANDA VEEDU, PARAVOOR.P.O., KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691301. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.CHARISMA ADV. SMT.K.G.BINDU FOR R3 TO 5 SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) FOR R3 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21340 of 2011(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCILLOR EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.7.2011 IN I.A.NO.811/2011 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.1.8.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21340 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner who claims to be widow of one Rajendran Pillai, seeks police protection directions in respect of her life and also in respect of her properties inherited by her from her deceased husband. The party respondents are siblings of the deceased Rajendran Pillai and the stand taken by them through their counter affidavit is that there was no legitimate wedlock between their brother Rajendran and Smt.Saraswathy. They have contended that the allegations levelled in the writ petition are absolutely unfounded. No property belonging to Rajendran was inherited by the petitioner and the petitioner is not in a possession of any such property. In fact, in respect of the property, a suit as O.S.No.174 of 2011 is instituted by the party respondents and in that suit there is an interim order of injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner filed O.S.No.290 of 2008 before the 2 W.P.(C) No.21340 of 2011 Family Court, Kollam interalia seeking declaration of the legitimate wedlock between her and Sri.Rajendran. That suit was dismissed for default and the petitioner filed an application for restoration. 2. Pursuant to our directions, the Learned Government Pleader obtained instructions from the concerned police officers. Learned Government Pleader submitted that an enquiry was conducted into Ext.P3 petition filed by the petitioner and the enquiry revealed that the petitioner does not have any possession over the property over which the petitioner claims. Though the property, at the time of Rajendran's demise, was in possession of a poojari, this poojari was ousted by the siblings of Rajendran. The petitioner is now residing alongwith her mother. It was also submitted that the enquiry reveals that, there is no threat to the life of the petitioner from the party respondents or anybody else. 3. We have considered submissions of Smt.Bindhu learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the party respondents. We have also heard Smt.C.M.Charisma learned Government Pleader. Having considered the submissions we are convinced that, no case is made out for issuance of the directions 3 W.P.(C) No.21340 of 2011 sought for. Even then we dispose of this writ petition without a direction to the 2nd respondent, if in future any complaint is received from the petitioner alleging that there is threat to her life or limbs from any of the party respondents, the 2nd respondent shall conduct thorough enquiry and if the enquiry reveals that there is substance in the complaint, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action as is warranted for safeguarding the life and limbs of the petitioner. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/