Kerala High Court
Subair A @Subair Rawther vs The District Police Chief on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SUBAIR A @SUBAIR RAWTHER,
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KARIM RAWTHER, SHA MANZIL, THADIKKADU,
ARAKKALVILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 532.
BY ADVS.
K.SIJU
S.ABHILASH
ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM RURAL,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 506.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM 691 306.
3 LISA,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. SUBAIR RAWTHER, SHA MANZIL, THADIKKADU P.O., THADIKKADU,
ARAKKAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 532.
4 SHAHANSHA,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. SUBAIR RAWTHER, SHA MANZIL THADIKKADU P.O.,
THADIKKADU, ARAKKAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691
532.
5 MUHAMMED SHA,
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. SUBAIR RAWTHER, SHA MANZIL THADIKKADU P.O.,
THADIKKADU, ARAKKAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 532.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN
B.ANUSREE
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he had settled his residential house in
favour of respondents 3 to 5, who are his second wife and the two
children with her respectively. He points out that he had settled the
property in favour of the party respondents, after reserving life
interest to himself, but that they are now threatening and intimidating
him with intent of grabbing it even during his life time. He says that
he has, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 petition before the 2 nd respondent
- Station House Officer, seeking protection; but that no action has
been taken thereon, thus constraining him to approach this Court
through this writ petition.
2. The afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by
Smt.Anjana Kannath, were vehemently opposed by Sri.Vishnu
Bhuvanendran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5. He
explained that his clients are the second wife and children of the
petitioner and that only the 3rd respondent - who is his wife, is now
staying in the same house. He added that respondents 4 and 5 are
respectable citizens, who are living in Ernakulam and therefore, that
the allegations made against them by the petitioner are with great
malafides and for confutative reasons. He further submitted that,
contrary to the allegations in the writ petition, it is not the petitioner
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
who is under threat, but his client - the 3rd respondent, who has now
been subjected to extreme barbarity by the petitioner and his children
from his first wife; and therefore, prayed that this Court may not pass
any orders in his favour, since he will misuse the same and cause her
extreme vexation in future.
3. Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader appearing
for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that it appears that the petitioner,
as also the 3rd respondent, are living in the same house; but that they
are at war with each other. He submitted that the Police are now
incapacitated from intervening into their disputes, but added that, in
terms of the interim order of this Court dated 03.11.2021, both their
lives had been adequately and effectively protected against each
other. He submitted that, if this Court is so inclined, the Police will
keep a vigil in the residence in question and ensure that both the
parties did not commit any act, which is in violation of law in future
also. He then added that at the instance of the 3 rd respondent, a
Crime has been registered against the petitioner as Crime
No.1177/2021 of the Anchal Police Station and that the said
respondent appears to have initiated action against him under the
provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
that, on one hand, the petitioner alleges that he has been subjected to
harassment by respondents 3 and 5, who are his wife and children;
while, on the other hand, the party respondents say that it is the
petitioner who is now attacking and harassing them.
5. Obviously, I find favour with the submissions of
Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government Pleader that the role of the
police is extremely limited.
6. That said, however, it is without requirement of
reinstatement that the Police is enjoined to ensure that the lives of
every citizen, including the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, are
adequately and effectively protected, particularly because they are
stated to be living in the same house and can cause grievous injuries
to each other.
In the afore circumstances, leaving open all the rival contentions
of the parties to be pursued by them as they are advised, I order this
writ petition to the limited extent of directing the 2 nd respondent to
ensure that the lives of the petitioner, as well as that of the 3 rd
respondent, are adequately and effectively protected, when they
reside together in the same house; for which purpose, a continuous
vigil will be maintained over the building in question and he will also
respond, as and when any complaint is made by either of them against
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
each other, swiftly and quickly without any avoidable delay.
As far as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are concerned, I
warn them to act civily to each other and to continue to reside in the
same building as long as they are so desirous, without causing any
harm to each other and that any conduct/act from their side in
contravention of the same, will visit them with very serious legal
consequences; for which purpose, I leave full liberty to the 1 st
respondent - District Police Chief to oversee the afore directions.
Needless to say, since the 4th respondent is stated to be visiting
the house in question every weekend, I order him not to commit any
act against the petitioner or any other person in violation of law and if
any complaint is made against him by the petitioner, the 2 nd
respondent will act in terms of the afore directions.
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 23968 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23968/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 3161/2011 OF
CHADAYAMANGALAM SRO EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER REGARDING 5.67 ARES IN RE.SY. NO.
342/13-2-2- OF ARAKKAL VILLAGE.
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 1406/2015 DATED
28.5.2015 OF CHADYAMANGALAM SRO IN RE. SY. NO.
342/13-2-2 OF ARAKKAL VILLAGE.
Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTED BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RE.SY.NO.
342/13-2-2 OF ARAKKAL VILLAGE.
Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 13.5.2021
ISSUED BY THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, SURYA HOSPITAL
ANCHAL.
Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 13.5.2021 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 THE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2021 ISSUED FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.7.2021 IN OP NO.
219/2021 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
Exhibit P8 THE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.8.2021PASSED BY
JFMC-1 PUNALUR IN CMP NO. 855/2021.
Exhibit P9 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 4.10.2021 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
