Kerala High Court
Violet Sharmila D'Souza vs Gopalakrishna Pillai on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 19344 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
VIOLET SHARMILA D'SOUZA
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O. SANTHOSH KUMAR, HOUSE NO.124, RAJEEV NAGAR,
ELAMAKKARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
P.M.ZIRAJ
IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
AGED 58 YEARS
PARATTUPADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, PULIYOOR P.O.,
CHENGANNOOR TALUK, PIN-689 510.
2 BIJU R.
AGED 48 YEARS
VIGNESWARAM, KAPPILMEKU, KRISHNAPURAM P.O.,
KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 533.
3 KARUNAKARAPILLAI
AGED 75 YEARS
BENJEESH BHAVANAM, EADHICKAL, KAYAMKULAM P.O.,
RANDAMKUTTI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 502.
4 NIHAL SHAJAHAN
AGED 23 YEARS
MADATHIL KUNNEL HOUSE, PERUMPANACHY P.O., THENGANA,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 636.
5 RUKKU B CHETTUCAD, AGED 23 YEARS, CHETTAKKAD HOUSE,
MANTHANAM P.O., KUNNAMTHANAM, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 581.
2
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
6 HARISH KUMAR N.
AGED 48 YEARS
KOVIL HOUSE, MATHANAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 581.
7 SANTHU P.
AGED 29 YEARS
SANTHU NIVAS, IVERKALA NADUVIL, PUTHUNAMPALAM
P.O., KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 553.
8 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-682 026.
9 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW AND
ORDER)
KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 018.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
ALEXANDER GEORGE
SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021.
The petitioner says that she is the wife of
Sri.Santhosh Kumar, who is now estranged from her and
residing separately. She explains that Sri.Santhosh
Kumar had several dealings with the party respondents
and that certain criminal cases have also been registered
against him with respect to this.
2. The petitioner alleges that the party
respondents, instead of invoking their remedies against
Sri. Santhosh Kumar, are now turning towards her, so as
to illegally pressurize her to settle the issues. She
asserts that she is now being continuously threatened by
respondents 1 to 7; and therefore, that she was forced to
approach the 8th respondent - Sub Inspector of Police for
protection through Ext.P1; but since no action was taken
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
thereon, she has been left without any other option but
to move this Court through this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj - learned counsel for
the petitioner; Sri.S.Sreekumar - learned counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent; Sri.Alexander George -
learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent;
Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader for 8 th and
9th respondents.
4. Sri.S.Sreekumar and Sri.Alexander George
submitted that the entire allegations in this writ petition
are not merely wrong, but are intended to help
Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar. They asserted that Sri.Santhosh
Kumar is still residing in the house of the petitioner and
that, in fact, both of them had agreed with their clients,
as well as with the other party respondents, to settle all
the liabilities; but that it is to resile from the said
obligation, that the petitioner has been used as a tool by
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
Sri.Santhosh Kumar to file this writ petition. They,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed and
that their clients be allowed to invoke and pursue all
legal remedies, as are available to both under the civil
and penal laws, against Sri.Santhosh Kumar and the
petitioner.
5. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 8 and 9, submitted that, in
implicit compliance of the interim order of this Court
dated 19.09.2021, petitioner has been afforded adequate
and effective protection. He then explained that the
allegation against Sri.Santhosh Kumar is that he obtained
illegal gratification from various persons, including the
party respondents and that the said respondents had
gone to his house to demand the same. He added that,
at present, though Sri.Santhosh Kumar is living in the
same house as the petitioner, he is not available there
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
and therefore, that the police are keeping a close vigil in
the area in question.
6. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is
clear that, on one side, the party respondents say that
the petitioner had herself promised to pay back their
money; while, on the other, the petitioner asserts that
she had made no such promise and that the party
respondents must seek any amount due to them from
her husband. It is, therefore, inevitable that the party
respondents must invoke their remedies, both under the
civil and the penal laws, against the petitioner or
Sri.Santhosh Kumar or both, as they may be advised,
but cannot take law into their own hands, nor can they
breach peace in any manner whatsoever.
7. In fact, both Sri.S.Sreekumar and
Sri.Alexander George, vehemently asserted that their
clients committed no such action and that they do not
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
intend to do so, but only prayed that their clients' legal
remedies be left open, without being prejudiced in any
manner on account of the observations in this judgment.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this
writ petition and confirm the interim order of this Court
dated 17.09.2021; with a consequential direction to the
1st respondent to act as per its terms and to ensure that
the petitioner is afforded necessary protection as and
when any complaint is made by her against any person,
including respondents 1 to 5.
I, however, make it clear that this order of
protection will not extend to Sri.Santhosh Kumar, even if
he is staying in the same house and that the police will
ensure that he does not commit any action in violation of
law hereinafter.
Needless to say, respondents 1 to 7 are at full
liberty to invoke and pursue all the remedies available to
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
them in law against Sri.Santhosh Kumar and/or the
petitioner, as they may be advised, both under the civil
and the penal laws; for which purpose, all their
contentions are left open, without being answered on its
merits in this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Raj/03.11.2021.
W.P.(C)No. 19344 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19344/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
11.9.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE EIGHTH RESPONDENT WITH COPY
TO RESPONDENTS NINE AND TEN.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
11.9.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
EIGHTH RESPONDENT TOWARDS EXHIBIT P1
COMPLAINT.
