IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23111 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SUBHADRA SUSEELAN,W/O.SUSEELAN, AGED 54 YEARS,RESIDING AT PERUMANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR.P.O,ANGAMALI(VIA),ERNAKULAM, PIN:683 586. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,ERNAKULAM RURAL,ALUVA-683 101. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VANITHA CELL,ALUVA,PIN-683 101. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALI,PIN-683 572. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ANGAMALI, PIN-683 572. 5. SAJEEV,S/O.SUSEELAN,AGED 33 YEARS, PERUMANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,THURAVOOR(PO)ANGAMALI(VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN:683586. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.BIJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 23111 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. A mother has approached this court seeking protection for her life and for her properties from what is described as contumacious actions of the 5th respondent and his wife. Her son Sri.Sajeev, the 5th respondent accompanied by his wife are present before us. Both the 5th respondent and his wife appeared to be persons physically handicapped. Sri.P.R.Sreejith, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.P.Biju, learned counsel for the 5th respondent addressed us in detail on the basis of the pleadings raised by their parties. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions received from the police submitted that pursuant to Ext.P4 complaint the petitioner, 5th respondent and his wife were summoned to the police station. The enquiry conducted by the 4th respondent revealed that the real dispute was about the property where the residential building as well as a shed are situated. The enquiry revealed that the property belongs absoslutely to the husband of the petitioner who is totally bed ridden. Parties were advised to have settlement of the property dispute through the process of the civil court. There was a complaint filed WP(C) .23111/2011 2 against the petitioner by the 5th respondent. Petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and his wife assured the 4th respondent Sub Inspector that neither of them will give rise to any law and order problems. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the police will keep vigil over the property where the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent and his wife reside and ensure ethat no law and order problem arises. 2. Having considered the submissions addressed at the bar and the information gathered by us from our conversation with the 5th respondent and his wife we are convinced that the property in question belongs absolutely to Suseelan the husband of the petitioner and father of the 5th respondent. We record all the submission of the Government Pleader. We direct the 4th respondent to keep vigil over the property where the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent are presently residing and if any complaint is received either from the petitioner, 5th respondent or his wife, the 4th respondent will conduct thorough enquiry into the complaint and to take necessary action on the basis of the complaint so that no danger is caused to lives of the petitioner, her disabled husband and the 5th respondent and his wife. Parties are relegated to the civil court if they are having any civil dispute over the property in question. 3. One of the grievances voiced through the learned WP(C) .23111/2011 3 counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner's daughter Saritha who is presently working abroad is not in a position to come to the house where the petitioner is presently residing due to the threat and contumacious acts of the 5th respondent and his wife. The 5th respondent and his wife assured us that they will not raise any objection in the matter of Sarita visiting the petitioner and her husband in their house. We record what we were told by the 5th respondent and his wife. If any difficulty is experienced by Saritha during her visit to the petitioner's house, she is free to report the matter to the 4th respondent who will take immediate action so as to ensure that Saritha along with her husband is able to visit her parents without any difficulty or trouble from the part of the 5th respondent and his wife. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .23111/2011 4