Dismissed

Prasad A.K. v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC17 Aug 2023WP(C)/17100/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a husband alleging assault and threats by his wife and children over family property disputes. Finding the matter to be purely matrimonial with no corroborating medical evidence for the alleged injury

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- were imposed on the petitioner to be paid to the Superintendent of Government Children's Home, Kakkanad.

Prasad A.K. Vs the District Police Chief — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 17100 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

PRASAD A.K.
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN,
AZHAKATH, MALAKKARA P O,
ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689532.

¶7

BY ADVS.
B.KRISHNA KUMAR
SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU
SRI.DINESH THANKAPPAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PATHANAMTHITTA P O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689645.

¶10

2THE S.H.O.
ARANMULA POLICE STATION,
ARANMULA P O, PIN - 689533,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3UMA RESMI K.I
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. PRASAD,
AZHAKATH, MALAKKARA P O,
ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689532.

¶12

4DEVIKA A.PRASAD,
AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. UMA RESMI,
AZHAKATH, MALAKKARA P O,
ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689532.

¶13

¶14

W.P(C).17100/2020

¶15

5KRISHNA DEVE A PRASAD,
AGED 17 YEARS, S/O. PRASAD,
AZHAKATH, MALAKKARA P O, ARANMULA VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN-689532.

¶16

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SANJAY
SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY
SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI JUSTIN JACOB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C).17100/2020

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Dated this the 17^th day of August, 2023

¶24

Petitioner, stated to be the husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondents 4 and 5, acquired the ownership of the property on devolution from his father. Adjacent to the plot in question, by his own fund, constructed a two storied building. Respondent No.3 made an unwarranted demand and became violent at the instance of family members. On 25.6.2020, respondent No.3 threatened the petitioner to relinquish and transfer his absolute possession and enjoyment over the landed property wherein the old house and new house are situated. Respondents 3 to 5 jointly assaulted and manhandled the petitioner and he sustained injuries on his face. In this regard, a complaint dated 25.7.2020 (Ext.P1) to respondent No.2 ie., concerned SHO of Aranmula Police Station acknowledged by Ext.P2 was made, but of no avail. Respondent No.3 has been misguiding the children despite demanding the money. Petitioner has threat to his life and liberty and therefore filed the present writ petition.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contested the petition and submitted that on enquiry, it was found that there

¶26

W.P(C).17100/2020

¶27

¶28

was no such threat extended by the respondents nor there was any threat to the law and order situation and purely a civil matter.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 3 to 5 also submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs as it is purely a civil dispute.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶31

Allegations made out from the petition reveals that petitioner was given some physical injuries but however, there is no medical record or evidence to corroborate the same. Petitioner is making allegations against his wife and children, who are stated to

¶32

have joined together to harass the petitioner. It is purely a matrimonial and family dispute, which cannot be adjudicated in the manner, seeking police protection as police, on enquiry, found that there was no such threat extended by the party respondents. Remedy for the petitioner, in case he is claiming exclusive ownership or devolution of interest in the property from being a coparcenary, has a right to claim relief in a competent court of law. It is a gross abuse of the process of the Court, whereby the present writ petition is filed for

¶33

W.P(C).17100/2020

¶34

¶35

indulgence with arm-twisting tactics to pressure through court interference. Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Superintendent, Government Children's Home, Kakkanad, Ernakulam -30 .

¶36

Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

sou.

W.P(C).17100/2020

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17100/2020

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
25.07.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXHIBIT P1 DATED
25.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.08.2020 SEND VIA EMAIL TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT R3 (a)TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE CIRCLE
INSPECTOROFPOLICE,ARANMULA
PATHANAMTHITTA ON 23.8.2020

Prasad A.K. v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad A.K. v. the District Police Chief

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

Vasu Panicker Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Sukumaran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Kollayil Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.T 253 D, (Apcos), Vs the State of Kerala

Josy.S.P. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

S.Manju Vs the State of Kerala

V.a.Ansar Vs Commissioner of Police