Petitioner challenged police interference in matrimonial custody dispute via writ petition. Court held police have no role in family disputes absent cognizable offence and left matter to Family Court, dismissing the writ.
Direction to fourth respondent not to interfere and to police to desist from interfering in matrimonial dispute left to Family Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 22087 of 2017 (I) ---------------------------
PETITIONER:
JITHIN P.JAMES,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O JAMES,PULIVILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU KADAMPANADU VADAKKUM MURI, ADOOR TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
RESPONDENTS:
D/O SHEENA JOSEPH, PAMPADY KANDATHIL HOUSE POTHENPURAM P O, PAMPADY VILLAGE KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN 686 502.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.22087 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2017
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Petitioner and the 5th respondent are husband and wife. Parties are on loggerheads and O.P.(G&W)593/17 filed by the petitioner is pending before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. It is in the meanwhile, this writ petition is filed complaining of police harassment, mainly with the allegations that the fourth respondent is interfering with the matrimonial disputes between the parties. He also seeks direction to the fourth respondent to produce the child before the Family Court in the aforesaid proceedings.
W.P.(C)No.22087 of 2017
: 2 :
petitioner that at the instance of the fifth respondent, the fourth respondent summoned the petitioner and the child to the Police Station and forcefully deprived him of the custody of the minor child. This is a factual dispute and the petitioner can urge this issue before the Family Court.
However, we do find force in the submission that in a matrimonial dispute the police have no role to play. Therefore, clarifying that in the absence of any cognizable offence being alleged against the petitioner, the police shall not interfere in the matrimonial dispute and leaving the entire disputes to be decided by the Family Court, writ petition is disposed of.
sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE
sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police can interfere in matrimonial disputes concerning custody of a minor child absent a cognizable offence.
Whether to grant direction to police to produce child before Family Court during pending custody proceedings.
JITHIN P.JAMES
STATE OF KERALA
THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ABILIN GRACE
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
