IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16510 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. DR. DEEPA, AGED 41, D/O. DR. BHASKARAN, R/AT. VH 87, VIKRAMAPURAM HILLS, UPPER MERIDIAN ROAD, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO FLAT NO.9D, WINTER MIST, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AMOGH, AGED 13, S/O. DR. JAYAPRASAD, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. 3. ARAV, AGED 11, S/O. DR.JAYAPRASAD, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. 4. DIYA, AGED 7. D/O. DR. JAYAPRASAD, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SRI.M.JAYAPRASAD SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. DR. JAYAPRASAD, AGED 46, S/O. BHASKARAN, R/AT NALINI VILAS, T.C. 5/608, OPPOSITE PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KARTHIKEYAN NAIR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AMARDEEP EYE HOSPITAL, OPPOSITE PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16510 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Ext.P6 complaint will clearly show that though there was an agreement to transfer one half right over the property in favour of the petitioner, documents have not been executed. According to the petitioner she is in possession of the half right along with the children and is occupying a portion of the building. The remaining portion having been let out to a third party. In case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the non-execution of the document by her former husband, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies from the family court and this court cannot go into such contentions. Ext.P6, however, does not show that there is any imminent threat from the third respondent. 2. If any specific complaint is made by the petitioner, which involves commission of any offence or apprehension of commission of the offence, the police will take necessary action in accordance with law. Since we are not issuing notice to the party respondent and since we are only directing the police to take action in WPC.16510/2009. 2 accordance with law, this order will not prejudice the right if any of the party respondent and it is for the police to enquire about the truth or otherwise of the complaint made and take action in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.