KESSY ZACHARIA Vs. STATE POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking Police protection. The persons against whom protection is sought are none other than her sister and her husband.

(2.) The facts presented reveal that property having an extent of 26 cents comprised in Re-Survey No. 5/18 of Kurampala Village originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner. The said property was the subject matter of a partition suit before the Munsiff Court instituted by the petitioner herein. In the suit, 5th respondent contended that her mother had bequeathed the property in her favour by executing a Will. However, after trial, the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the 5th respondent failed to prove the execution and genuineness of the Will and after declaring the same as void held that the petitioner was also entitled to half share. The 5th respondent has carried the matter in appeal and the same is still pending.

(3.) The result of the above litigation is a serious strain in the relationship between the parties. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent are residing under the same roof and both have nowhere else to go. The petitioner states that the party respondents have been subjecting her to physical as well as mental violence. In the said circumstances, she had to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate with a petition invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005. By Exhibit P2 order, the learned Magistrate has restrained the party respondents from harassing the petitioner mentally or physically or in any manner interfering with her peaceful life. The petitioner states that despite the issuance of Exhibit P2 order, the party respondents are continuously making threats of physical harm. She even states that on one occasion, the 5th respondent attempted to overpower her and attempted to outrage her modesty. In the said circumstances, she has filed Exhibit P5 to P8 complaints before the Police. However, she complains that no action is being taken. She, in the said circumstances, has rushed to this Court seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to afford adequate and effective protection to the life of the petitioner from any threat or violence from respondent Nos.4 and 5.