IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24628 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABITHA ASOKAN, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.SULOCHANAN PRATHIBHA,5A(2),FUTURE CENTRE APARTMENT,BAKERY-FIRE STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MOHAMED RASHEED RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DR.RANJITH NATHAN,S/O.SUBHODHINI, THANKACHI VEEDU,THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM-691 001, WORKING PHYSICAN,MEDICARE HOSPITAL,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R.BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** W.P(c) No.24628 of 2011-C ***************************** Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2, both police officials, to afford protection to her against physical violence and threat from the 3rd respondent, who is none other than her husband and the father of her child. 2. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were admittedly divorcees. They entered into matrimony on 11.09.2009. One child was born in the wedlock. The relationship is now strained. According to the petitioner, she resides in a flat, which stands in the name of the 3rd respondent. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she was being threatened, harassed and intimidated by her husband, the 3rd respondent. She seeks police protection for herself and her child and other relatives from illegal, contumacious, culpable and violent conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent and his relatives. W.P(c) No.24628 of 2011-C 2 3. This petition was admitted and notice by special messenger was ordered to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has been served. There is no appearance for the 3rd respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that allegations and counter allegations have been raised by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. There admittedly is strain in the matrimony. Two crimes have already been registered - Crime No.653 of 2011 under Section 498A I.P.C on the complaint of the petitioner and Crime No.64 of 2011, inter alia, under Sections 451 and 324 I.P.C on the complaint of the 3rd respondent has been registered. The learned Government Pleader submits that the police officials do not perceive any threat of violence between the two parties warranting issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that peaceful residence of the petitioner at the address shown in the petition would be rendered impossible if she is not granted an order of protection. It is not disputed that the property in question stands in the name of the 3rd respondent. The W.P(c) No.24628 of 2011-C 3 petitioner has not gone to the civil court nor has she sought any direction from the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 6. We accept the submissions of the learned Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that there is no need for issue of any directions for providing police protection to the petitioner. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if there be perception of any danger to the life or person of the petitioner, the police shall take necessary action in accordance with law. We do not think it necessary to issue any specific directions regarding the right of the petitioner or the 3rd respondent to possess and occupy the residential building/apartment. That dispute has to be resolved by the parties by initiating appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. We are not persuaded to agree that any directions regarding the right of the petitioner to reside in the apartment which stands in the name of the 3rd respondent can or need be issued by us in this petition. We do take note of and record the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investment has been made by the petitioner and her parents for purchase of the apartment, though the apartment W.P(c) No.24628 of 2011-C 4 stands in the name of the 3rd respondent. We do not think it necessary to embark upon that controversy in this petition. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that no specific directions under Article 226 of the Constitution need be issued to respondents 1 and 2 to afford protection to the petitioner. In coming to that conclusion, we take note of the submission of the learned Government Pleader that in the perception of respondents 1 and 2, there is no threat to the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat, the police shall take appropriate action, submits the learned Government Pleader, which we accept. 8. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/