Allowed

Esmail Pillai v. Superintendent of Police(Rural)Trivandru

Kerala HC6 Aug 2010WP(C)/19874/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an elderly man, filed a writ petition directing police and family members to stop obstructing visitors and denying access, alleging harassment. The court reserved the submission that the petition appeared collusive but granted relief ensuring no obstruction without violating the DV Act order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to obstruct relatives/friends from visiting petitioner or rendering necessary help for his movement and life in the house; respondents 2 and 3 directed not to cause harassment

Esmail Pillai Vs Superintendent of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 19874 of 2010(H) --------------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S): ----------------------

¶5

ESMAIL PILLAI, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, RESIDING IN KALLOORI VILA VEEDU VELLALLOOR VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶8

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001.

¶9

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695011.

¶10

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695011.

¶11

SHERLY, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.REMLATH BEEVI, KALLOOR VILA VEEDU, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695011.

¶12

SALIM, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ESMAIL PILLAI, RESIDING IN KALLOOR VILA VEEDU, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695011.

¶13

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS.

¶14

ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R4

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.19874 AOF 2010 H

¶17

PETEITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 13.1.2010.

¶19

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.138 OF 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶20

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 22.3.2010 IN I.A.NO.942/2010 IN O.S.NO.138/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶21

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 9.4.2010 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

PS to Judge

¶25

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

¶26

W.P(C). NO.19874 OF 2010 H

¶27

Dated this the 6^th August, 2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶30

Prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:

¶31

“A. Issue a writ of mandamus or other order directing respondents not to obstruct the relatives and close friends and well-wishers from visiting the petitioner in his house and rendering him necessary help for his free movement and life in his house.

¶32

B. Respondents 2 and 3 be directed not to cause any harassment or obstruction to the peaceful life of the petitioner and his wife in his house and property.”

¶33

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

¶34

Petitioner is an old man aged 84 years. He is suffering

¶35

from various old age disabilities. His wife is also old and sick.

¶36

WPC.19874 OF 2010 H

¶37

¶38

Fifth respondent is his son. Fourth respondent is the daughterin-law or rather the fourth respondent is the wife of fifth respondent. It is stated that a collusive order was obtained by respondents 4 and 5 from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal under the Protection to Women from Domestic Violence Act and respondents 4 and 5 have influenced respondents 2 and 3 and are obstructing the petitioner and his wife from getting help of others for their peaceful life in their house. Respondents 2 and 3 are harassing the petitioner by restraining the relatives and friends of the petitioner from visiting the petitioner in his house.

¶39

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that actually the petitioner is colluding with his son, namely the fifth respondent and that it is submitted that there is no question of obstruction by the fourth respondent

¶40

WPC.19874 OF 2010 H

¶41

¶42

and when the order passed by the learned Magistrate was violated, the fourth respondent filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thiruvnanthapuram and the Superintendent of Police gave direction to the Circle Inspector of Police to see that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is not disobeyed.

¶43

Learned Government Pleader would also submit that the Writ Petition appears to be a collusive affair between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Learned Government Pleader would submit that respondents 1 to 3 will not obstruct the relatives, close friends and well-wishers from visiting the petitioner in his house and for rendering help for his movement and life in his house. We record the said submission. But, this Judgment should not be understood as meaning that it is a licence for the petitioner to violate in any manner the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal

¶44

WPC.19874 OF 2010 H

¶45

¶46

in favour of the fourth respondent under the Protection to

¶47

Women from Domestic Violence Act.

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/=

K.M. JOSEPH,

JUDGE

Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE

¶53

kbk.

¶54

// True Copy //

¶55

PS to Judge

Esmail Pillai v. Superintendent of Police(Rural)Trivandru

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esmail Pillai v. Superintendent of Police(Rural)Trivandru

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

Ismayil.v Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ismail Vs Circle Inspector of Police, Kodungallur

K.T.Muhammed Ali @ Bava Haji Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sajil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Chandran.N.R Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala & 19 Others