AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is before this Court claiming protection from the illegal activities allegedly perpetrated by respondents 5 to 10. The 5th respondent
is admittedly the husband of the 1st petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioners have mutually destructive prayers in
the writ petition seeking police protection and also a direction not to harass them. The petitioners contend that they have filed a petition before the
Magistrate''s Court alleging domestic violence in which Ext.P1 order has been passed whereby the respondent has been restrained from causing
any sort of physical or mental violence against the petitioners. It is also admitted that the 5th respondent has approached the Family Court for
divorce and in that he had sought for continuing his residence in the house which jointly belongs to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.
It is the submission of the petitioners that the 5th respondent is continuously harassing them and his demand is that the 1st petitioner consent to a
divorce. The first petitioner is not agreeable to such a course of action especially since they have three daughters, of which one is of marriageable
age and the other a minor. On the aforesaid submissions the petitioners seek protection of the police especially alleging an incident in which the 5th
respondent has cut off the electricity and attacked the petitioners on the allegation that it was the petitioners who cut off the supply.
It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent Circle Inspector of Police is colluding with the 5th respondent and on a visit made to the house of the
petitioners and the 5th respondent he has forced the 1st petitioner to agree to a consent for divorce.
The 5th respondent however submits that he had been working in Gulf for 30 years as a Welder and as an occupational hazard his eye sight
failed and he had to leave the job and come back to the country. However the 1st petitioner was not ready to accept him and hence he has filed an
application for divorce. The 5th respondent submits that in fact the 1st petitioner is harassing the 5th respondent and there is also a crime registered
against the 1st petitioner by the police on a complaint raised by the 5th respondent.
The learned Government Pleader submits that on 18.6.2017 the 1st petitioner is said to have attacked the 5th respondent and a crime has been
registered and after investigation charge sheet laid in the jurisdictional court. The respondent/Police have never interfered in the marital disputes
between the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent is the submission.
On the allegation of the power supply being cut off there were complaints raised by both the 5th respondent and the petitioner on which two
crimes are registered and investigation is going on.
Considering the allegations and counter allegations it is difficult for this Court to grant police protection to either of the parties. From the
submissions above recorded it is clear that there is discord in the marital life of the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent. It may not be proper for
the police to interfere in such issues. If a complaint is received, definitely the police will carry out the investigation and proceed in accordance with
law. The marital discord would have to be settled in the appropriate civil forum. As to consenting to divorce none can force the 1st petitioner to
consent to a divorce and it is for the 1st petitioner to contest any petition for divorce filed before the appropriate forum. We are of the opinion that
there could be no orders passed in the writ petition. Leaving the parties to appropriate remedies the writ petition would stand closed.