Kerala High Court
Raghavan K V vs State Of Kerala on 6 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 RAGHAVAN K V
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. CHATHU, KOLATHUVAYAL HOUSE, AIRANI, KARIMBA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678597
2 K LAKSHMI
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. RAGHAVAN, KOLATHUVAYAL HOUSE, AIRANI, KARIMBA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678597
BY ADVS.
JERRY PETER
NAYANA VARGHESE
AHAMMAD SACHIN K.
NAMITHA GEORGE
NITHIN KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, ROOM
NO.357A, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, STATUE
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GENERAL.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS, PALAKKAD P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678014
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DYSP OFFICE, MANNARKADU P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678582
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KALLADIKKODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
678596
5 BINU K R
S/O RAGHAVAN, KOLATHUVAYAL HOUSE, AIRANI, KARIMBA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678597
6 ASWATHI LEELA
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
2
D/O LEELA, CHOTHODIYIL HOUSE, KALADIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678596
SMT.REKHA C.NAIR, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners say that they were residing
in their house, which is owned by first among
them and that they have permitted the 5 th
respondent - their son to do so with them. They
allege that, however, they are being harassed
and tortured by the said respondent, with the
assistance of the 6th respondent; and
consequently that they were forced to move out
with their relative and to make a complaint
before the 4th respondent - Station House
Officer, seeking protection.
2. The petitioners say that, however, in
spite of their complaints, namely Exts.P3 to P5,
no action has been taken by the police, citing
the reason that they cannot intervene in
domestic disputes. They assert that the afore
stand of the police is untenable because, their
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
lives are under threat from respondents 5 and 6.
3. When this matter was called today,
Sri.Jerry Peter - learned counsel for the
petitioners, explained that, pending this lis,
the 2nd petitioner suffered heart attack and that
she has been shifted to Kozhikode for treatment.
He added that the 1st petitioner is take care of
the 2nd petitioner and that once she better, they
want to move back to their house, but fear that
they will not be allowed to do so by respondents
5 and 6. He, therefore, prayed that, as and when
the petitioners return to their home, the 4th
respondent - Station House Officer, be directed
to give them adequate protection, so as to
enable them to live with dignity and without
fear.
4. The endorsements on file reveal that the
notices issued from this Court to respondents 5
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
and 6 has been validly served. They have,
however, chosen not to be present in person
today, or to be represented through counsel;
thus inferentially guiding me to the impression
that they have nothing to offer in opposition to
the reliefs claimed by the petitioners.
5. Smt.Rekha C.Nair - learned Senior
Government Pleader, submitted that the police is
fully alive to their obligations to protect the
lives of the petitioners, who are both senior
citizens. She added that, since the petitioners
say that the 2nd among them is now undergoing
treatment in Kozhikode and that they will return
to Palakkad after such, the police can be
contacted by them, who will thereupon offer
requisite protection, to ensure that they enter
the house and are to live there without any
threat or intimidation from any source,
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
including from respondents 5 and 6.
6. I have no doubt that the afore stand of
the police is appreciable in the given
circumstances because, it is their duty to
ensure that persons like the petitioners - who
are both octogenarians - are allowed to live
the winter years of their life in peace and with
dignity. The allegations made by them against
respondents 5 and 6 remain controverted now and
obviously, therefore, the police are required to
act as and when any request is made by them.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this
Writ Petition, leaving liberty to the
petitioners to make a requisition to the 4th
respondent for protection, as and when they
require to return to their house in Palakkad; in
which event, the same will be taken note of and
immediate assistance offered both for them to
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
enter the house and to reside their peacefully
and without any apprehension. The police will
also thereupon that respondents 5 and 6 are
restrained from any conduct which is in
violation of law and in harassment to the
petitioners; and all necessary measures shall be
put in place on a continual basis to ensure that
these directions are complied with in its letter
and spirit.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS
WP(C) NO. 14035 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14035/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT VISIT SUMMARY OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY DR. SAMEERALI
PARAVATH, MEITRA HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE DATED
06.12.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER ISSUED BY DR.SAMEERALI PARAVATH,
MEITRA HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 03.10.2018
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
04.12.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
14.02.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
14.02.2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.11314/2024 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 26.03.2024
