IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11389 of 2011(W) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THOMAS VARKEY, S/O.THOMMAN, RESIDING AT PANTHANAZHIYEL VEEDU, KADAPPOOR KARA, VATTUKULAM P.O., KURUVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP SRI.MATHEWS RAJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686002. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURAVILANGAD POLICE STATION, KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633. 3. REJI P.VARGHESE, S/O.THOMAS VARKEY, RESIDING AT KOLATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KADAPPOOR KARA, KANAKKARI VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KURUVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER C.M.CHARISMA R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: krj WP(C).No. 11389 of 2011(W) A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD CONSTITUTED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM DATED 27.8.2010. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION IN I.A NO.170/2011 IN O.S NO.34/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF ETTAMANOOR DATED 11.2.2011. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DATED 10.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- R3(A):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AS M.C NO.14/2011 DATED 1-3-2011 BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE COURT AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY HIS WIFE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT. R3(B):- COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17-2-2011 FILED BY THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.11389 of 2011-W ***************************** Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection for him against illegal, contumacious and violent acts on the part of the 3rd respondent, who is none other than his own son. 2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, his son, is having an eye on his property and is vexing and harassing him and indulging in violent and contumacious conduct against him to compel him to agree to unreasonable terms. The petitioner is unwilling to do the same. He has already given sufficient properties to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has no right to make such demands, much less to vex the petitioner with his demands. In these circumstances, directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is prayed. 3. The 3rd respondent has entered appearance. The 3rd respondent has a different story to advance. According to the 3rd respondent, the allegations are absolutely false. The 3rd W.P(C) No.11389 of 2011-W - 2 - respondent does not intend to take any action or indulge in any contumacious or violent conduct against the petitioner, his father. The true state of affairs is entirely different. The petitioner has a difference of opinion with his wife, ie. the mother of the 3rd respondent. She has been driven out of the house. She has taken shelter with the 3rd respondent. She has initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act. It is to steal a march over the wife of the petitioner in such proceedings initiated by her, that the petitioner is now seeking issue of directions under Article 226 for police protection. This petition may now be dismissed. No directions under Article 226 of the Constitution need be issued, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that in the perception of the police also, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner now. The learned Government Pleader confirms that the petitioner has a difference of opinion with his wife and the spouses are at loggerheads now. An interim order was passed by this Court on 08.04.2011. In the light of that interim order, the petitioner had W.P(C) No.11389 of 2011-W - 3 - lodged a complaint on 16.04.2011 complaining that the 3rd respondent had locked the house and refused access to him into the house. Parties were called to the police station. It was realised that not the 3rd respondent, but his mother, ie. the wife of the petitioner, had locked the house and key was with her. The key has now been returned. There is no surviving threats or risk, submits the learned Government Pleader. In these circumstances, no directions under Article 226 are necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent shall not indulge in any acts of violence against his father. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the interim direction issued on 08.04.2011 has been complied with scrupulously. We take note of and record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat against the life or person of the petitioner emanating from the 3rd respondent, the petitioner can make complaint to the police and if the complaint W.P(C) No.11389 of 2011-W - 4 - is found to be genuine, action in accordance with law shall be taken. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader recorded above. We are satisfied that no specific directions under Article 226 are now necessary; 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/