SOSAMMA CHACKO Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a widow aged 86 years. Her husband died in the year 1979. Petitioner is suffering from various ailments. She has got three children - two sons and a daughter. All are married and the fourth respondent elder son is residing along with his family nearby the family house of the petitioner at Idayaranmula and the fifth respondent is his wife. Petitioner had got 75 cents of property in Aranmula Village in Pathanamthitta District. Her daughter abandoned her share in the family property. Out of the 75 cents, 37.5 cents of property was given to the fourth respondent in the year 2008 and 25 cents of property was given to the younger son. Remaining 12.5 cents of property was in the name of the petitioner. While so, the fourth respondent again compelled the petitioner to transfer the remaining land of the petitioner to them on the assurance that they would maintain the petitioner properly. Petitioner was no other go and transferred another 6.5 cents of property in the name of the fourth respondent in the year 2009. Even after executing the deed in their favour, respondents 4 and 5 did not care to maintain the petitioner and they did not provide basic amenities even. Demanding the remaining property and the family house therein, petitioner was subjected to mental cruelty by both, and physical harassment by the fifth respondent. Finally, the petitioner had to leave the house and got an asylum at an old age home at Kumbanadu in 2010. As the petitioner was not maintained and was not provided with basic amenities, she has cancelled the deeds executed in favour of the fourth respondent. A suit against the petitioner and a petition before the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act against the fourth respondent are pending before the appropriate forums. Six cents of property wherein the family house situates, is not subject matter in any of the proceedings. The entire expenses for the stay at the old age home, is being met by the younger son who was abroad along with family. Now, he came back on getting information as to the pathetic condition of the petitioner. Now, the petitioner is desirous of residing at her family house. But, respondents 4 and 5 are not allowing her to reside there. There is persisting threat of physical harassment from the fifth respondent as well. Though the petitioner submitted petitions before the authorities seeking police protection, no action has been taken thereon and hence the petitioner is before us.

(3.) A Reply Affidavit is filed to which an Additional Counter Affidavit is also filed. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.