Allowed

Valsamma Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2018WP(C)/30891/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner senior citizen approached High Court alleging threats by deceased husband's relatives to snatch her properties. Court directed police to afford adequate protection upon fresh complaint and verification of any attempt or cognizable offence. No substantive law set out, purely protective order based on plea.

What did the court decide?

Directed Station House Officers of Changanassery and Thrikodithanam to afford adequate and effective protection to petitioner and daughter upon fresh complaint and verification of offence.

Valsamma Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

WP(C).No. 30891 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

VALSAMMA MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS W/O.LATE MATHUKUTTY ABRAHAM, VALIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, PAYIPPAD MURI, PAYIPPAD VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STATE SECRETARIAT, MINISTRY OF HOME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695001.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM , 686001

¶14

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHANGANASSERY, 686101

¶15

4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CHANGANASSERY- 686101

¶16

5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRIKODITHANAM POLICE STATION - 686104

¶17

6 PAULOSE, MUNDUKOTTAL, PAYIPPAD, CHANGANASSERY- 690514

¶18

WPC 30891/18

¶19

¶20

7 V.A. FRANCIS VELIYAPARAMBIL, PAYIPPAD, CHANGANASSERY- 690514

¶21

8 REJI NELSON, W/O. NELSON, VALIYAPARAMBIL, PAYIPPAD, CHANGANASSERY- 690514

¶22

9 SISTER SALAS @ LILLYKUTTY, VALIYAPARAMBIL , PAYIPPAD, CHANGANASSERY, NOW RESIDING AT CHETHIPUZHA CARMEL CONVENT, CHETHIPPUZHA - 686106

¶23

10 THANKACHAN,KIDITHARA VEEDU,NEDUMKUNNAM, KARUKACHAL, CHANGANASSERY 686539

¶24

BY ADVS. JACOB CHACKO SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SRI.C.A.JOJO SRI.SHAFFIE THOMAS

¶25

SR.GP. SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 30891/18

JUDGMENT

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶31

The petitioner, who says she is a senior citizen living with her 23 year old daughter, has approached this Court alleging that respondents 6

¶32

to 10, who are stated to be her deceased

¶33

husband's relatives, are threatening her and her daughter with the intention of snatching her and her husband's properties. The petitioner asserts

¶34

that respondents 6 to 10 are now harassing her,

¶35

with an intent to force her to settle her properties in their name. She adds that she and her daughter are now being continuously threatened and therefore, that she is entitled to be protected by the police appropriately.

¶36

We notice that a counter affidavit has

¶37

been filed on behalf of the respondents 6 to 10

¶38

and that they are represented by a learned

¶39

counsel. The counsel for the respondents 6 to 10

¶40

submits, in tune with the averments in the counter affidavit, that the allegations made by

¶41

WPC 30891/18

¶42

¶43

the petitioner appears to be on account of

¶44

delusion since that they have not, in any manner, threatened her or caused any harm to her as is alleged. They say that the petitioner's husband has run up several liabilities against many others but that they have not in any manner harassed her and that they have no reason to do so. They further say that the 9^th respondent is,

¶45

in fact, a 75 year old nun, residing in the

¶46

Carmel Convent, Changanassery and that she is not even able to walk, which indicates the delusional nature of the allegations made.

¶47

The learned Senior Government Pleader,

¶48

appearing on instructions from the Police Authorities, submits that when they made an

¶49

enquiry, they have now gathered a suspicion that

¶50

the cogitational faculties of the petitioner and

¶51

her daughter require an expert assessment. They

¶52

say that they state about each other as being mentally unwell and that many of the allegations in the writ petition may be on account of such a

¶53

WPC 30891/18

¶54

¶55

condition. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that since the petitioner only wants protection for life, the police will do

¶56

everything possible, since they are enjoined, as per law, to protect the lives of every citizen including that of the petitioner.

¶57

submissions and going through the materials on

¶58

record, we are certainly of the view that the petitioner and her daughter are to be protected sufficiently by the police if they are facing any threat as alleged by them. However, since we notice respondents 6 to 7 stating unequivocally

¶59

in their pleadings that they have neither attacked them in the past, nor intend to do so in future, we are of the view that it is only as and

¶60

when a fresh complaint is raised by the

¶61

petitioner before the police, that they will be

¶62

required to act, if after verification it is

¶63

found that there has been any attempt or the commission of a cognizable offence, at the

¶64

WPC 30891/18

¶65

¶66

instance of respondents 6 to 10 or anyone else.

¶67

In the result, we order this writ petition

¶68

and direct the 4^th respondent-Station House Officer, Changanassery and the 5^th respondentStation House Officer, Thrikodithanam Police Station, to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and her daughter, if she makes any complaint against the respondents 6 to 10 or anyone else and the police will be then enjoined to act as per law, subject to

¶69

appropriate verification.

¶70

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶73

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

WPC 30891/18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶78

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 23.8.2018

¶79

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶80

// TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE RR

Valsamma Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsamma Mathew 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

Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswoms - Rep. by Its Executive Officer Vs State of Kerala - Rep. by Secretary to Revenue (Devaswoms) Department

Komalam Vs State of Kerala

Safexpress Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar.K Vs the Managing Director

A. Muhammed Iqbal Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

N.Siddque Vs the District Collector