SAINA SAJI Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to protect the legal custody of the 1st petitioner minor, by the 2nd petitioner, her paternal grandmother.

(2.) WE were not satisfied that any directions can, need or deserve to be issued invoking the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226. WE requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain.

(3.) IN our perception the dispute is purely one regarding guardianship and custody of the 1st petitioner. The dispute is now between the 2nd petitioner, the 1st petitioner's paternal grandmother, and the 3rd respondent, the mother of the minor girl. We do not intend to express any opinion on the disputed rights of the 2nd petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the minor girl. We are however convinced that this is not a dispute which can be attempted to be resolved by invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. The police cannot decide that dispute. We cannot direct the police to decide that dispute. The dispute must rightly be resolved by initiating appropriate proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act. Without and before doing that, the 2nd petitioner has conveniently chosen to file this petition for police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.