Kerala High Court
Soumya M.P vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
2024:KER:77245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 35728 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SOUMYA M.P
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O GANESHAN M P, MUNDAKUNDUPARAMBIL, NAMBYARADUKKAM
(H), RAVANESHWAR P.O, KASARGOD, PIN - 671316.
BY ADVS.
BONNY BABY
KARTHIK BHAVADASAN
BENRAJ K.R.
PRASOON.K.P
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001.
2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682308.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL)
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 683101
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682314.
5 SREEKUMAR K A
AGED 39 YEARS, KARAVATTA HOUSE, THUPPUMPADY,
THUPPAMPADY, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN - 682314.
2024:KER:77245
WP(C) NO. 35728 OF 2024 2
SRI.AJITH VISHWANATHAN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:77245
WP(C) NO. 35728 OF 2024 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges unnecessary harassment by the
police at the instance of her husband, the 5th respondent
herein.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, with respect to the custody of the children born to the
petitioner and the 5th respondent, a case is pending before
the Family Court. The children are presently with the 5 th
respondent since the petitioner is working abroad. The 5 th
respondent used to permit the petitioner and her parents to
meet and interact with the children earlier. However, after
December, 2023, the 5th respondent is not permitting the
petitioner to even contact the children, therefore, at the
petitioner's request her parents visited the 5 th respondent's
residence at Ernakulam so as to meet the children. To their
surprise, on reaching Ernakulam, the petitioner's parents
2024:KER:77245
received a call from the Mulamthuruthy Police Station based
on a complaint from the 5th respondent, alleging that the
petitioner's parents had attempted to kidnap the children.
Immediately, the petitioner's parents rushed to
Mulamthuruthy Police Station and stated the true facts.
Thereupon, the Officer concerned contacted the 5 th
respondent and asked him to come over to the police station
with the children. Accordingly, the 5 th respondent appeared
with the children, but the petitioner's parents were not
permitted to interact with the children. Instead, the Officer
stated that unless the mother of the children appear at the
Mulamthuruthy Police Station, no permission for interaction
will be granted. While so, on 25.9.2024, the 5th respondent
called the petitioner and threatened to kill the minor children
if the petitioner and her family makes further attempts to
contact them. In the face of such threat, the petitioner was
2024:KER:77245
forced to come back and lodge a complaint. According to
the petitioner, from the moment the complaint was lodged,
she is being harassed by the police and after filing of this
writ petition, the harassment has intensified.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the
custody of the children was with the 5 th respondent and his
parents, since the petitioner is abroad. The petitioner and
her parents were permitted to interact with the children.
When the 5th respondent denied such interaction, the parents
lodged a complaint before the police and the police had
summoned the 5th respondent to the police station. Later,
the petitioner came down and she, as well as the 5 th
respondent and the children, were called to the police
station. It is submitted that, except requiring the presence of
the parties to ensure the well being of the children, nothing
further was done by the police.
2024:KER:77245
In spite of the detailed explanation offered by the
learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the police
is unnecessarily intervening in a matrimonial dispute by
frequently summoning the parties to the police station. In
any event, the police is not justified in requiring the presence
of the children at the police station frequently. The custody
and welfare of the children are matters to be decided by the
Family Court. The writ petition is hence disposed of
directing the 4th respondent to desist from interfering in the
family dispute between the petitioner and the 5 th respondent
and refrain from harassing the petitioner and her family
members in any manner whatsoever.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Sru
2024:KER:77245
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35728/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5-10-2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE (RURAL) ALUVA DATED 7-10-2024.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 8-
10-2024.
Exhibit P4 AND THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8-10-
2024 WITH PDF ATTACHMENT.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DATED 7-10-
2024.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 8-
10-2024.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 8-10-2024
WITH PDF ATTACHMENT ILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 12-09-2024 ISSUED BY THE MALABAR CANCER
CENTRE THALASSERY.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
DATED 28-08-2024 OF THE PETITIONER AND 5TH
RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE SREELAKSHMI KALYANA
MANDAPAM, KANHANGAD, KASARGODE.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
