PAUL JOSEPH Vs. SHAMLA PAUL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before us seeking protection from the alleged threats of respondents 1 and 2. The 1st respondent is none other than the petitioner's legally wedded wife. They have also two children born in the wedlock. However, the matrimonial relationship ran into rough weather as the 1st respondent had developed intimacy with the 2nd respondent, who also is having estranged relationship with his own wife. The 2nd respondent has now severed his relationship with his wife. In order to harass the petitioner, the 1st respondent filed petitions against him before the Magistrate's Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, raising baseless allegations and obtained an order, which is Ext.P1. The petitioner has challenged that order before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Because of the continuance of the harassment meted out to the petitioner, he was coerced to file a joint petition with 1st respondent for divorce by mutual consent, copy of that application is Ext.P2. The petitioner states that when he had been to meet his children, he found the 2nd respondent together with the 1st respondent at her house and there occurred an altercation between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner states that he was abused and assaulted. He filed Ext.P3 complaint before the police. However, no action has been taken. The petitioner was once travelling from Kothamangalam to Thiruvananthapuram, in his car and he found respondents 1 and 2 travelling together in another car. Just for confirming the same, he overtook their vehicle and found both of them and also his child inside the car. However, the 1st respondent misrepresented facts and filed a complaint before the police alleging that the petitioner had attempted to hit her car and cause hurt to her. On the basis of that complaint, Ext.P4 F.I.R. was registered against him. Narrating the true incidents, he had filed Ext.P5 complaint before the police. The 5th respondent refused to accept that complaint and hence he filed Ext.P6 before the Police Commissioner. Thereafter, on his way to Family Court to attend his case, he was waylaid by the 1st respondent along with another person and was intimidated and threatened with dire consequences. The petitioner filed complaints before the respondents 3, 4 and 7 regarding that incident, which is Exts.P7 to P9. That apart, it is submitted that the wife of the 2nd respondent has also lodged Ext.P10 complaint against the 1st respondent for causing threat to her life. Ext.P11 is the F.I.R. that was registered on the basis of complaint filed by her. Despite all the criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are continuing to harass him and levelling threats against him. He was left with no other option, but to approach this Court. The petitioner seeks protection to his life from the threats held out by respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The 1st respondent appeared and filed a counteraffidavit denying the allegations made against her in the petition. It is contended by her that she had started a concern by name "Ocean Gems and Pearls" in the year 2000 and consequent to her marriage with the petitioner, 50% of its share was transferred in his name and he was appointed as the Managing Director. Thereafter, he went to Oman and sent a resignation letter to her severing his relationship with the business. The 2nd respondent is only assisting her in the company affairs and is also the friend of her brother. It is the petitioner, who is actually threatening the 2nd respondent. That apart, the 2nd respondent's wife has illicit relationship with the petitioner and the 1st respondent had only gone to her office to inform her senior about the illicit relationship. However, she has twisted the story and filed a false complaints against her, implicating her in criminal cases. The petitioner and 2nd respondent's wife had also come to the house of the 1st respondent and threatened her. It is the petitioner, who is living in adultery with the wife of the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that when the 1st respondent was returning after visiting her mother at Kochi in the car driven by the cousin of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner attempted to hit her car. It was the petitioner and the wife of the 2nd respondent, who had waylaid the 1st respondent on her way to the Family Court. The petitioner and 2nd respondent's wife had together visited the school, where the children are studying, causing much annoyance and ridicule to them. The intention of the petitioner is to obtain an order from this Court and continue with his harassment of the 1st respondent and her children. The petitioner has filed a reply-affidavit reiterating what he has stated in the petition and denying the contentions in the counter-affidavit.

(3.) On perusal of the documents and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the party respondents as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 to 8, we find that the apprehension of the petitioner regarding threat to his life is misconceived and there is no material which would support his contention regarding any actual threat to his life by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent are at loggerheads and litigations are pending before the Family Court, as well as the Magistrate's Court. There are allegations and counter allegations, all of which need to be adjudicated and resolved before the Family Court as well as the Magistrate's Court. The learned Senior Government Pleader, under instructions, also does not support the allegations of threat to life raised by the petitioner. It is stated that the crimes registered, are being inquired. The police authorities cannot be deployed to interfere in such matrimonial disputes. We are, therefore, not inclined to issue any positive direction to the police authorities. It is also stated that the complaints filed by both the sides are being inquired into by the police. Any complaint revealing any cognizable offence filed by the petitioner, the same shall be proceeded in accordance with law. The petitioner has also a case that he is prevented physically from appearing before the Family Court. If so, nothing stops the petitioner from informing the Judge of the concerned Court through his lawyer. With these observations, and leaving open the remedy available to the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 to agitate their disputes before the appropriate forum, the writ petition is closed. No costs.