K. VARALAKSHMI Vs. M. KESHAVAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this court seeking for a direction to be issued to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to protect the life of the petitioners at the hands of the first respondent by holding proper enquiry or in the alternative, to transfer the case to CBI and also to grant such other relief or reliefs that this court deems fit in the circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner is also seeking for issue of a writ of direction to proceed with all the complaints filed by the petitioners and protect her life. During the pendency of this petition I.A. No. 1/2014 is also filed seeking a direction that the petitioner be provided protection against the continued atrocities of respondent No. 1.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. In the back ground of the complaint, which has been made by the petitioner against the first respondent, it cannot be lost sight that the petitioner is the wife of the first respondent and there is strained marital relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent. In that light, the petitioner through a complaint, as also the averments made in the petition, has referred to certain property transactions where under the petitioner is said to have entered into transactions with third party purchasers and even the sale deed has been executed through their daughter Leenachandu. The case of the petitioner is that despite such transaction being completed by the petitioner through her daughter to sell the said property, the first respondent has thereafter created a document in respect of the very same property seeking to transfer the property to his own sister. It is also contended that in that light, there being certain disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent, the first respondent has taken law into his hands and has assaulted the petitioner and despite the petitioner having alleged in the complaint that there is an attempt on her life and the case was sought to be registered under section 307 of IPC, no further action has been taken in that regard. The petitioner has relied on the communication at Annexure -A dated 5.3.2010 to contend that despite such direction being issued by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, no action has been taken by the jurisdictional police and also from the objections filed before this court, the respondents 2 and 3 have taken the matter very lightly and have not initiated any action.