Dismissed

R.Palaniammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC17 Dec 2021WP(MD)/9561/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandatory police protection for the petitioner's life and property. The court noted submissions from a daughter-in-law that no threat was made and allowed the petitioner to seek remedy elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to provide police protection not granted; no costs.

R.Palaniammal Vs the Superintendent of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9561 of 2019

¶2

R.Palaniammal

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 17.12.2021 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN W.P.(MD)No.9561 of 2019

¶5

R.Palaniammal ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai.

¶7

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomatchikulam,

¶8

Madurai – 625 014.

¶9

3.The Inspector of Police, Appan Thirupathi Police Station, Appan Thirupathi, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner's life and limb as well her property, based on the representation, dated 13.02.2019 forthwith.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

For Intervenor : Mr.K.Prabhu

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the third respondent to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner's life and limb as well her property, based on the representation, dated 13.02.2019, forthwith.

¶15

2.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, dated 03.12.2021, after ascertaining the fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner reports that out of four houses, in one house, presently, the second son of the petitioner is residing and in another house, her daughter-in-law, wife of first son is residing. In respect of other two houses, one house was leased out by one of her sons and the petitioner is not collecting any rent.

¶16

3.Mr.K.Prabhu, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner's daughter-in-law submits that she never threatened her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/2

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.9561 of 2019

¶19

mother-in-law and if at all the petitioner has any right, she will work out her remedy before the appropriate Court.

¶20

4.Recording the above said submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai.

¶27

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oomatchikulam, Madurai – 625 014.

¶28

3.The Inspector of Police,

¶29

Appan Thirupathi Police Station, Appan Thirupathi, Madurai.

¶30

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

¶31

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.9561 of 2019 17.12.2021

¶33

AM (CO)

¶34

GC(30.12.2021) 2P 5C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

2/2

R.Palaniammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Palaniammal v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Prema, Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.R.Jayachitra, W/O.Karuppiah Vs the District Collector

Mahalakhsmi Vs the Secretary to Government

Dindigul Star Fish Indoor Game Vs the Superintendent of Police

S.Kousalya, Vs the State, Rep.by the Deputy

V.Murugesan, Vs the District Collector