IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6609 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MANOLI K.K.MOIDU HAJI, S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, NELLIYULLA PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, IYYAMKODE AMSOM, CHIYYOOR DESOM OF VATAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. BY ADV. SRI.C.PUSHPODARAN SRI.P.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. K.K.FAISAL, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, MANAGER, MODUGEDU PUBLIC SCHOOL, KARIYAD ROAD, PERINGATHOOR, P.O.PERINGATHOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.670 650 2. NEELIYATH KUNHAMMAD, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, NEELIYATH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLI P.O., DESOM OF VADAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.PIN- 673 542 3. NEELIYATH REFEEQ, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 28 YEARS, NEELIYATH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLI P.O.,DESOM OF VADAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.673 542 4. NEELIYATH IBRAHIM HAJI, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 70 YEARS, BUSINESS, NEELIYATH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPPALLI P.O., DESOM OF VADAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT KERALA STATE, INDIA.PIN-673 542 sts WP(C)NO.6609/2011 5. NIRATHUMMAL MUHAMMAD, S/O.SOOPY HAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, NIRATHUMMAL HOUSE, VANIMEL P.O., DESOM OF VADAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.673 543 6. PACHAKKUL HAMEED, S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 45 YEARS, KORONTAVIDE HOUSE, CHIYYOOR AMSOM VISHNUMANGALAM P.O., VADAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. 673 506 7. KORONTAVEDE SHAMSU, S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 42 YEARS, AGED 42 YEARS, KORONTAVEDE HOUSE, CHIYYOOR AMSOM VISHNUMANGALAM P.O., VADAKARA TALUK OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. 673 506 8. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTHERN ZONE, P.O.NADAKAVU, CALICUT-673 011, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.PIN- 673 011 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE RURAL, VADAKARA.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA.PIN- 673 101 10. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE CIRCLE OFFICE, VADAKARA.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. PIN- 673 101 11. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM .P.O., NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. 673 101 12. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION, VADAKARA.P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. 673 101 R1, R4 TO R7 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS R8 TO R12 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.6609/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION FILED BEFORE NADAPURA MUNSIFF COURT. P2 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM. P3 COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT VADAKARA WHICH IS SENT FORINVESTIGATION AND NUMBERED AS VADAKARA POLICE STATION CRIME 80/2011. P4 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENTS 8 TO 10. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6609 of 2011-A ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition for issue of directions to respondents 8 to 12 under Art.226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the life and person of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner admittedly divorced his wife on 19/12/2010. According to the petitioner, he had to divorce his wife because of the alleged mental illness of hers. Respondents 1 to 7 are the son of the petitioner, his two brothers-in-law i.e., brothers of his divorced wife, the father of the divorced wife and relatives of the divorced wife. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 7 appear to be entertaining an impression that he divorced his wife only to facilitate a re-marriage. The petitioner has no intention to re-marry, it is submitted. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 7 are involved in an attempt to vex and harass the petitioner. They are indulging in contumacious, culpable and violent conduct against the petitioner. Such conduct is apprehended in future also. In W.P.(C) No.6609 of 2011 -: 2 :- these circumstances, it is prayed that police protection may be ordered to the petitioner. 3. Respondents 1 and 4 to 7 have entered appearance through counsel. Respondents 2 and 3 have not been served yet. We have heard the learned counsel. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 4 to 7 submits that all the allegations raised against them are false. They do have disputes with the petitioner. But they have no intention to assault or cause any harm to the petitioner's life or his person. The allegations are raised with no bona fides at all. In these circumstances, no directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are liable to be issued, submits the learned counsel for the party respondents. 4. The learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions from the police officials, submits that a complaint has been filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and the same has been forwarded to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. An allegation under Sec.307 IPC was raised in the said complaint. But the investigation reveals that it is a grossly exaggerated complaint. At any rate, action is being taken for the investigation of that crime. According to the learned Government Pleader, in the perception of the police officials, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. It is, of W.P.(C) No.6609 of 2011 -: 3 :- course, true that consequent to the divorce of the wife of the petitioner a person having grown up children, there is strain in the relationship between the parties. The learned Government Pleader undertakes that necessary police protection shall be given to the petitioner if there is any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. No further directions under Art.226 of the Constitution are, in these circumstances, necessary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. We have considered all the relevant circumstances. We take note of the fact that there is strain in the relationship between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 1 to 7 on the other. However, we are not satisfied that any specific directions under Art.226 of the Constitution can, need or deserve to issued. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner from respondents 1 to 7, adequate and necessary action shall be taken by the police. 6. In the result: (a) This writ petition is dismissed. (b) In taking this decision we place heavy reliance on the submission of the learned counsel for the party respondents that they have no intention to assault or cause any harm to the W.P.(C) No.6609 of 2011 -: 4 :- person or life of the petitioner. We also take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be any threat to the life or person of the petitioner, the petitioner can complain and thereupon necessary action shall be taken by the police. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge