Avinash Aniyan vs The State Police Chief
2021 Latest Caselaw 22646 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 25311 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     AVINASH ANIYAN, AGED 32 YEARS
          S/O.K.A.ANIYAN, KURUPPANPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAVIPERROR
          P.O, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 542.

    2     SUSY ANIYAN, AGED 63 YEARS
          W/O. K.A.ANIYAN, KURUPPANPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR
          P.O, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 542.

          BY ADV BINDU GEORGE



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
          VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

    2     THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
          ERNAKULAM (RURAL), PIN 691 001.

    3     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          PATHANAMTHITTA , PIN 689 645.

    4     DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          PUTHEN CRUZ, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 308.

    5     DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
          THIRUVALLA, PIN 689 101.

    6     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, RAMAMANGALM, PIN 686 663.

    7     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
          THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689 101

    8     N.C. BABY, AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O CHACKO, NANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM P.O,
          MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 686 663
 WP(C) NO. 25311 OF 2021
                                     2




     9          BINCY BABY @ BINCY ANDREWS, AGED 52 YEARS
                W/O. N.C.BABY, NANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
                RAMAMANGALAM P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN
                686 663.

    10          ANNAMMA ANDREW, AGED 72 YEARS
                KODUNGOOR HOUSE, KAVIYOOR P.O, NEAR
                NJALIKANDAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689 582.

                BY ADV ASHA BABU
                SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP



         THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION        ON   19.11.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25311 OF 2021
                                3


                           JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners who

are stated to be son and mother respectively, alleging that

the first child of the first among them is in the custody of

the daughter of respondents 8 and 9, who is his wife; and

that when he attempts to meet the child, he is being meted

out threats and intimidation. The petitioners say that they,

therefore, preferred Exts.P2 and P3 before respondents 6

and 7 respectively seeking protection; but that no action has

been taken thereon, thus constraining them to approach this

Court through this writ petition.

2. Smt.Asha Babu, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 8 to 10, in response, submitted that her clients

have absolutely no role to play in this case, since the

disputes are between the petitioners and their daughter. She

submitted that the wife of the first petitioner is not willing to

allow him to meet her or to meet the child and that she is

now under a resolve to obtain divorce from him. She prayed

that, therefore, this Court may not grant any relief in this

writ petition as sought for.

WP(C) NO. 25311 OF 2021

3. Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader,

submitted that the disputes between the parties are

certainly in the realm of matrimonial law and therefore, that

the police cannot intervene in it. He added that all that the

police Authorities can do is to protect the lives of the

petitioners from any threat or intimidation from the party

respondents.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear

that the real case of the petitioners is not that they have

been threatened by the party respondents at their place of

residence but that the first among them wants to go to the

residence, of the latter so as to see his young daughter. I

am afraid that this cannot be possible through a "police

protection" matter and the petitioners, particularly the first

among them, has to invoke other appropriate remedies

through the competent Forum/Court.

5. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition to the limited

extent of directing the seventh respondent to protect the

lives of the petitioners, but not for the first among them to

visit the house of the party respondents or to see his child. WP(C) NO. 25311 OF 2021

Needless to say, the rights of the first petitioner to

invoke any remedy, as he may be advised, to meet his child,

is left open for him to pursue appropriately without being

fettered or trammeled by any of my observations or

directions above.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 25311 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25311/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF MARRIAGE, ERAVIPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 04.09.2019.

Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 6.11.2021.

Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT DATED 6.11.2021.