IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8268 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SIMI GEORGE, S/O.LATE K.C.GEORGE, AGED 40 YEARS, KANNADAN HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., THANIKKAL JUNCTION, KOCHI-26. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, KALAMASSERY. 2. ANJU.K.VIJAYAN, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.K.T.VIJAYAN, PALLITHODE P.O., PIN-688 584. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA), SRI.T.JEEJAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.8268/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 16.9.09 GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8268 of 2011-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are spouses. It was their second marriage. They have no children in the wed-lock. The marriage, it is submitted, did not proceed harmoniously. There were disputes between the parties. Parties separated. Ext.P2 receipt was issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner confirming that all gold ornaments were received back by her from the petitioner on 16/9/09. 2. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has serious mental ailment. It was, in these circumstances, that they separated. But after separation and after executing Ext.P2 agreement, the influential 2nd respondent was prevailing upon the 1st respondent to vex and harass the petitioner. The petitioner, in these circumstances, has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to W.P.(C) No.8268 of 2011 -: 2 :- put an end to such harassment against him by the 1st respondent at the instance of his wife - the 2nd respondent. 3. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance. The learned counsel submits that the 2nd respondent does not dispute the execution of Ext.P2 receipt. But it is the grievance of the 2nd respondent that subsequently all ornaments have been taken away by the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader submits that a complaint to that effect was received at the Police Station from the 2nd respondent. But the parties have been advised to go to the civil court and get their disputes resolved. The petitioner shall not be called to the Police Station in connection with the said complaint of the 2nd respondent, undertakes the 1st respondent through the learned Government Pleader. 5. It is not necessary for us to go into the acceptability of the rival assertions. We need only note that the learned Government Pleader, on behalf of the 1st respondent, submits that the petitioner shall not be called to the Police Station and his presence will not demanded in connection with the complaint about the alleged retention of the gold ornaments of the 2nd respondent by him. We take note of the submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent W.P.(C) No.8268 of 2011 -: 3 :- shall initiate proceedings before the civil court for recovery of the gold ornaments allegedly due to her from her husband. 6. Recording the said submissions of respondents 1 and 2, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge