Kerala High Court
Joseph vs 1. The Superintendent Of Police ( Rural ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:26369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
JOSEPH
AGED 50 YEARS
THEKKEKARA, PUTHAN VEEDU AANAVATTACHIRA, DALI P.O
KULATHOOPPUZHA THINGAL KARIKKAM VILLAGE KOLLAM, PIN -
691001
BY ADV VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ( RURAL KOLLAM )
VHVR+F22, ASHRAMAM RD, ASRAMAM KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN -
691001
2 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KULATHOOPPUZHA POLICE STATITION KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691310
3 3. MINI JOSEPH
THEKKEKARA, PUTHANVEEDU AANAVATTACHIRA, DALI P.O
KULATHOOPPUZHA, THINGAL KARIKKAM KOLLAM, PIN - 691310
4 4. JOMON
THEKKEKARA PUTHANVEEDU, AANAVATTACHIRA, DALI P.O
KULATHOOPUZHA, THINGALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, PIN - 691310
5 5. JIJI MOL,
THEKKEKARA PUTHANVEEDU, ANAVATTACHIRA, DALI P.O
KULATHOOPUZHA, THINGALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, PIN - 691310
BY ADVS.
ANSU VARGHESE
K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM)(K/143/2010)
KRISHNANUNNI G.B.(K/3585/2022)
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:26369
J.BAHULEYAN(K/1137/1994)
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:26369
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 39994 OF 2024
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1
and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the life of the
petitioner from the threats being caused by the respondents
3 to 5.
2. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the petitioner.
The respondents 4 and 5 are the children born in their
wedlock. The marital relationship is strained. There are
litigations pending between the parties before the Family
Court, Kottarakkara. The 3rd respondent has filed
M.C.No.42/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Punalur invoking the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Ext.P1 order
was passed granting her right to live in the petitioner's
house. Under the guise of the said order, the respondents 4
and 5 are attacking the petitioner. In fact Ext.P3 crime is
registered against the respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner is
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
2025:KER:26369
apprehensive that the respondents 3 to 5 may cause harm
to his life. Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit
denying the allegations in the writ petition. She has
contended that the petitioner has filed the writ petition
only for the purpose of circumventing Ext.P1 order passed
by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It was the petitioner who
assaulted the 4th respondent, and a complaint has been
preferred by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd respondent.
The complaint filed by the petitioner has already been
referred as mistake of fact. The 3 rd respondent is suffering
form serious health issues. The petitioner has caused harm
to the 3rd respondent. If the petitioner is granted an order of
police protection, he would harm the respondents 3 to 5.
Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for
the party respondents.
5. The materials on record reveal that the marital
relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
2025:KER:26369
is strained. Ext.P1 order is passed in favour of the 3 rd
respondent, restraining the petitioner from causing any sort
of domestic violence to the 3rd respondent and causing any
obstruction to the peaceful residence in the shared house
(the house of the petitioner). The respondents 4 and 5 are
the children of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.
However, it is undisputed that the shared household
belongs to the petitioner. The respondents 4 and 5 have no
legal right to enter the petitioner's property. There are
cases and counter cases filed by and against the parties.
Therefore, I am of the view that, as long as Ext.P1 order is
in force, the petitioner cannot prevent the 3rd respondent
from residing in the shared household. But, the respondents
4 and 5 have no legal right to enter the property and cause
law and order problems.
In the afore-said circumstances, I dispose of the
writ petition by directing the 2 nd respondent to afford
adequate police protection to the life of the petitioner from
any threat being caused by the respondents 4 and 5.
However, the 2nd respondent shall not interfere in the right
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
2025:KER:26369
rd
of the 3 respondent residing in the shared household as
long as Ext.P1 order is in force. The 2nd respondent shall
also ensure that law and order is maintained in the
petitioner's locality, without interfering in any
civil/matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the
2nd respondent.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/26.03.25
WP(C) NO. 39994 OF 2024
2025:KER:26369
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39994/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 ORDER IN CMP 2070/ 2022
Exhibit P3 COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KULATHOOPUZHA
Exhibit P2 FIR CRIME NO. 777/2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) The copy of the complaint preferred by me
against the petitioner before the 2nd
respondent dated 12.08.2022
Exhibit R3(b) The copy of the complaint preferred by me
against the petitioner before the 2nd
respondent dated 12.01.2024
Exhibit R3(c) The copy of medical certificate of the
Radiologist, St. Gregorios Medical Mission
Hospital
