BELA NAYAK Vs. CHHABI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this art.226 petition is alleging that the police have failed and neglected to take any action against the first three respondents. The first three respondents are (i) the petitioner's daughter-in-law (second son's wife), (ii) her granddaughter (second son's daughter) and (iii) her second son. Counsel submits that the petitioner lives with her first son, and that the first son is bearing the expenses of this case.

(2.) According to the petitioner her second son, the third respondent, has driven her out of the house that she built with her own money. It has been submitted that the petitioner has approached the High Court because (i) she thought that the High Court would play a conciliator between the private parties, and (ii) she was told by the police that if she obtained an order from the High Court that would strengthen the hand of the police.

(3.) I am unable to see how the High Court can exercise power under art.226 to play a conciliator for resolving private disputes between a mother, her son, her daughter-in-law and her granddaughter. It sounds ridiculous that the police would need an order from the High Court for strengthening their hand. It seems to me that the things have been said only for obtaining an otherwise unavailable order from the High Court under art.226 for creating a pressure on the private respondents and the police.