IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30904 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MUHAMED,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALI,KUZHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, CSEZ PO,KAKKANAD,KOCHI-30. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI 682 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA 682 028. 3. RAMLATH.E.K, D/O.KOCHUNNI,AGED 36 YEARS, MALIEKKAL VEEDU,PADAMUGAL,KAKKANAD 682 030. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABDUL SALAM STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30904 of 2011(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE RECEIVED IN O.P.816/10 FROM THE HON FAMILY COURT, EKM. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF O.P.1793/11 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON. FAMILY COURT, EKM. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.25/10/11 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.30904 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner, a husband complains that at the instance of 3rd respondent, his wife with whom he is fitted in matrimonial dispute before the local Family Court, the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector of Police is harassing him. On the basis of telephonic instructions received, it was submitted on behalf of the State Attorney that the accusations of police harassment levelled against the 2nd respondent are untrue. It was also submitted that the 2nd respondent has no intention to intervene in matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent especially as the same is pending before the Family Court. We record all the submissions made on behalf of the State Attorney. We direct respondents 1 and 2 that they are not expected to intervene in the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent/wife W. P. C. No.30904 of 2011 -2- especially when the Family Court is already in seizin of the matter. We dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 2nd respondent to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr. P.C if the attendance of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE