IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18089 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL SALAM, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED KUTTY, KUNNATHU PARAMBIL, P.O. THALAKADHATHU, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN, SRI.SYAM J SAM. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAGANJERRY POLICE STATION, MALPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. LILA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O ALVIKUTTY,KAMADIKAL HOUSE, P.O. PONMUNDAM,TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. ASKAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O ABDUR RALUMAN, THALUDHA PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. PONMUNDM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL FOR R4 & R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18089/2008-C: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FROM 01/01/2005 TO 24/08/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING S.B AC.NO.7408. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE TALAQ NAMA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 09/06/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18089 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner and the 4th respondent were husband and wife. He submits, he has divorced her as per the Muslim Personal Law. Two children were born to them in that wedlock. They were with the petitioner. Apparently, under the influence of respondents 4 and 5, the 3rd respondent started threatening and harassing the petitioner to hand over the custody of the children to the 4th respondent. The police officer used to call him using the mobile phone No.98469 98552. Thereafter two police men came to the petitioner's residence on 5.6.2008 and 7.6.2008 asking him to hand over the children to the 4th respondent . The above actions of the police are illegal and unauthorised and therefore, he has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction against the 3rd respondent, not to harass the petitioner and his family members. He has filed a complaint, Exhibit P4 against respondents 4 and 5 before the Director General of Police. He prays, a direction may be issued to the police to investigate into that complaint. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit denying W.P.(C)No.18089/08 -2- the allegations of the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioner has taken away the children by use of force from her custody. When the petitioner was away she was looking after them and they are very much attached to her. But the petitioner is compelling the children to reside with him. To legitimize the seizure of the children by force, this Writ Petition is filed, it is submitted. 3. As directed by this Court, the 3rd respondent has filed a statement, in which the said respondent denies the allegations of the petitioner. The owner of the mobile phone from which threatening calls were received by the petitioner is not a police officer attached to the 3rd respondent's Police Station. The said respondent has moved the computer cell of the police to identify the subscriber. He denies the allegations of harassment from his part. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the writ petition was taken up for hearing last day, he was summoned to the Vanitha Police Station and when he appeared with the children, the younger child was taken by force from him and handed over to the 4th respondent by the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Vanitha Police Station, it is submitted. This Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions on that submission. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a complaint has been received against the W.P.(C)No.18089/08 -3- petitioner from the 4th respondent disclosing several offences, in the Vanitha Police Station. Since it was a family matter, the police thought of holding a conciliation so that there may be a settlement between the parties. When the children came to the Vanitha Police Station, the younger child wanted to go with the mother and the allegation of use of force is denied by the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the child was taken by force against its wishes. 5. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent has not harassed the petitioner and the said respondent has no intention whatsoever to harass the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the sending of the child by the Vanitha police with the 4th respondent, he may work out his remedies available to him under law. Without prejudice to the contentions of both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of recording the aforementioned submission of the learned Government Pleader. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn