IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1220 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SARAMMA AUGUSTINE, D/O ELAYAMMA, NADUMURIYIL VEEDU, MEENAMKERIL, THOTTAPUZHA EAST P.O., VALLAMKOLAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. NOBLE AUGUSTINE, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O CHACKO AUGUSTINE, -DO- -DO- 3. NELSI AUGUSTINE, D/O CHACKO AUGUSTINE, AGED 14 YEARS, REP. BY IST PETITIONER OF MOTHER. 4. VILSY AUGUSTINE, D/O CHACKO AUGUSTINE, AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER. BY ADV. SMT.L.SATHY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHACKO AUGUSTINE, KANIKUNNEL VEEDU, AMBOORI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUSANNA, KANIKUNNEL VEEDU, AMBOORI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C). NO.1220/2008: 3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S.I. OF POLICE, VELLARADA, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ========================== W.P(C).No.1220 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The first petitioner is the divorced wife of the first respondent. Petitioners 2 to 4 are their children. The second respondent is the present wife of the first respondent. The first petitioner submits that the first respondent obtained divorce from her from the Family Court by playing a fraud without serving notice on her. She has already moved the Family Court to recall that order granting divorce. Recently, the first petitioner along with her children tried to enter the house of the first respondent, but he came out and threatened them with a knife. The second respondent also supported him. So, the first petitioner filed Ext.P3 petition before the police praying to interfere in the matter and settle the dispute. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate reliefs. 2. We are of the view that the police have no role to play in WP(C) 1220/08 -: 2 :- the above dispute. It is a civil dispute between the first petitioner and the first respondent. The police cannot render her any protection to enter the residence of the first respondent. In the absence of any right in the petitioner and corresponding duty in the police, we cannot issue any direction to the police as prayed for by the petitioners. To establish their rights, the petitioners have to move the family court or the civil court as the case may be. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 12/1