AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is instituted by the petitioner alleging that the 1st respondent, the S.I. of Police is not keen on executing the warrant given to him by the Family Court for arresting the 2nd respondent, the petitioner''s former husband, in execution of a claim for maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner by the family court. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, we on 17.11.2012 passed the following order:
No admitted. Sri. N. Suresh, the learned Govt. Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Sri. N. Suresh will ensure that the 1st respondent files a statement before this court within ten days from today answering the allegations in the Original Petition against him and explaining the difficulty experienced by him in the matter of arresting the second respondent.
Accordingly, the 1st respondent has filed a detailed statement. It is stated therein that in spite of earnest efforts taken by the first respondent to trace out the warrantee, the warrantee could not be traced out. It is seen that the warrantee''s house as well as the warrantee''s new wife''s house elsewhere were searched. It is also stated in paragraph 5 as follows:
Request has already submitted before the District Police Chief, Malappuram to obtain the mobile phone call details of his new wife''s phone (954431702) to locate the 2nd respondent on getting the same, whereabouts of the warrantee could be traced out and then he could be arrested, after obtaining the presidency passport to travel to Tamilnadu. If his hideout is there. In the event of non-accomplishment of the venture steps would be taken including proclamation and attachment of the property of the warrantee, if the law may allow and order from court accordingly.
We are convinced that the first respondent is not guilty of any willful dereliction of duty in the matter of executing the warrant The petitioner or any of her representatives are given liberty of pointing out the whereabouts of the 2nd respondent if her case that the 2nd respondent is very much present in the locality is correct. The first respondent should permit the petitioner or her authorised representative to accompany the police officers who are going to execute the warrant against the petitioner. The Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions.