Disposed

Deena v. Rajesh Kumar & Others

Kerala HC2 Aug 2010WP(C)/10640/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus for police protection and restraint of threats against the petitioner and her daughters by family members, ordering police protection only if specific threats materialize.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents 4 and 5 to afford adequate police protection if respondents 1 to 3 make any threat to petitioner's life; no order regarding daughters.

Deena Vs Rajesh Kumar & Others — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶3

MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 10640 of 2010(D)

PETITIONER(S):

DEENA, W/O.LATE VENU, ASWATHI HOUSE, MUTHANA P.O., PALAYAMKUNNU, VARKALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SANEER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.DEVADASAN, "RADHADEVAN", THOTTAKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM.

¶13

RADHA, W/O.DEVADASAN, "RADHADEVAN", THOTTAKKADU P.O., KALLAMBALAM.

¶14

BEENA VISHNU, W/O.VISHNU, V.B.HOUSE, VAILIAKAD P.O., CHIRAYANKEEZHU.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA CIRCLE.

¶17

ADV. SRI.M.AJAY FOR R1-3

¶18

R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.10640 OF 2010 D

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2007.

¶23

EXT.P2PHTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P3PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

PS to Judge

¶28

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶29

W.P(C). NO. 10640 OF 2010 D

¶30

Dated this the 2^nd August, 2010

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶33

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding or compelling respondents 4 and 5 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her daughters.

¶35

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding or directing respondents 1 to 3 not to commit any threat to the life of the petitioner.

¶36

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 4^th and 5^th respondents to consider and act upon Exts.P2 and p3 in accordance with law.”

¶37

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶38

Petitioner is a widow. First respondent is her brother.

¶39

Second respondent is her mother and third respondent is her

¶40

WPC.10640/2010 D

¶41

¶42

sister. There is reference to a partnership business and events which allegedly took place after death of her husband. It is further stated that there is threat by the first respondent along with the other party respondents to execute her share in favour of the first respondent. There is also threat of killing her daughters. There is further reference to event allegedly took place on 18.3.2010. In short, it is the case of the petitioner that the party respondents threatened the petitioner to take away the life of her daughters. Petitioner filed Ext.P2 complaint, followed by Ext.P3.

¶43

A Counter Affidavit is filed by respondents 1 to 3 wherein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:

¶44

About six to seven years back, when the petitioner's family found it hard to make ends meet, the third respondent's husband extended financial support to set up a proprietorship concern for the petitioner. Reference is made to Ext.P1 partition deed. There is denial of amount being received from the petitioner or her husband. Reference is made to Ext.R1(b) lease deed. It is

¶45

WPC.10640/2010 D

¶46

¶47

further stated that they have not and they will not threaten the petitioner, abuse her or otherwise interfere with her life. But, it is alleged that she has certain problems. Ext.R1(a) Certificate is produced. It is stated also that the allegation that they came to the petitioner's house and locked her in a room and threatened to kill her daughters is equally false. It is their case that the third respondent's husband paid capitation fee and secured a payment seat for the elder daughter and the third respondent and her deponent are also looking after the younger daughter who is in the care of second respondent in the deponent's house. Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit in the matter.

¶48

Learned counsel for the party respondents reiterate that the party respondents have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioner or her daughters. We record the said submission and dispose of the Writ Petition directing that in case there is any threat from respondents 1 to 3 to the life of the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 shall afford adequate police protection as against any such threat. With regard to the

¶49

WPC.10640/2010 D

¶50

¶51

daughters of the petitioner, in view of the undisputed position that they are living with the second respondent, we do not think,

¶52

for the time being, it is necessary to pass any orders.

¶53

Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶54

Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE

¶55

kbk.

¶56

// True Copy //

¶57

PS to Judge

Deena v. Rajesh Kumar & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deena v. Rajesh Kumar & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moosakutty Vs S.P. of Police, Palakkadu.

K.v.Prathapan Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Ravi Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Dileep Kumr Vs S.I. of Police and Another

Lalithamma Vs Sub Inspector of Police,Venjaramoodu

Mohammedali Vs Dist. Collector and Others