Disposed

Lalitha C.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2014WP(C)/23772/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a widow complaining of threats to her life and property from her adopted daughter and her son-in-law following an inter-community marriage. The Court recorded the respondents' undertaking not to cause disturbance and directed the police to investigate any future complaints of real apprehension.

What did the court decide?

Directing the jurisdictional police officer to look into any future complaints made by the petitioner regarding real apprehension of threat to life or property.

Lalitha C.George Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/18TH ASWINA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 23772 of 2014 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

LALITHA C.GEORGE, W/O.LATE SELVARAJ, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT KRIPA MANDIRAM, KOONAMKUZHI PUNALLUR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 305.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.

¶11

2. SANOSH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SATYAN, RESIDING AT MOHANAVILASOM, SASTHAMKONAM, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 305.

¶12

3. MARIAM SICILY RAJ, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O.SANOSH, RESIDING AT MOHANAVILASOM, SASTHAMKONAM, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 305.

¶13

R1 BY ADV.P.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, STATE ATTORNEY R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.V.BEENA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.V.DEEPA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) 23772/2014

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 09.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD, TALUK HOSPITAL, PUNALUR. P2 : COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19.09.2013 MADE BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

¶23

.................................................................... WP(C) No.23772 of 2014 .................................................................... Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2014.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶26

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

2.Petitioner complains about threat to life and property from third respondent, who is her adopted daughter, and the second respondent, who is stated to have recently married the third respondent against the wishes of the petitioner. The writ petitioner, vividly, states the manner in which she, a widow, is taking care of her son, who is certified with 80% permanent disability, which appears to be a combination of physical and mental disorders. The matrimonial relationship between respondents 2 and 3 is no ground for them to visit the petitioner's life or property against her will and wishes. She is entitled to provide support and protection to her challenged son as well.

¶28

3.Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 argued that the writ

¶29

WP(C) 23772/14

¶30

-2-

¶31

petition is only a reflection of the petitioner's discord owing to inter-community marriage between respondents 2 and 3. We are not prepared to take it that way. This writ petition reflects the excruciating agony of a mother, who brought up a girl child after adopting her and even sending her for medical education. On the full scheme of facts of the case in hand, we think that the petitioner would have even made the adoption, looking forward to a child for support in future, when her biological son was a challenged person in the physical and mental sense. The manner in which the 3^rd respondent has acted disturbing her mother's emotional status does not commend acceptance in the constitutional format, which recognizes duties of citizens to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture and to cherish and follow the noble ideals, which inspired our national struggle for freedom, and to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and to have compassion for living creatures. The duties expected from one who is a daughter and a sister are vast; more so when, her brother is a physically and mentally

¶32

WP(C) 23772/14

¶33

-3-

¶34

challenged person and the widowed mother is advancing in age.

¶35

4.Be that as it may, for the present, it is sufficient for us to record the submission on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they do not intend to cause any inconvenience, disturbance or challenge to the life or property of the petitioner and her son.

¶36

In the result, this writ petition is ordered directing that in the event of the petitioner making any further complaint about any real apprehension of threat to life or property, the jurisdictional police officer will look into it and do the needful.

¶37

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶38

(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶39

Lalitha C.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha C.George v. State of Kerala

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

Maliyekkal Subaida Vs Abdul Khader.C.T

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Usha Rajamma Vs Appu

Dr.J.Abraham Neyyarapalli Vs Balachandran K.K.

James Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Biju Xavier Vs State of Kerala