Sajitha Viswanathan vs The Sub Inspector of Police and Others

K.M. Joseph, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondents not to harass the Petitioner in a case pending before this Honourable Court as well as before the Family Court at Palakkad.

ii. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondent No. 6 to enquire into the allegations raised by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 2.

Briefly put, the case of the Petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the wife of one Viswanathan, who is working abroad. There are various allegations raised against the 3rd Respondent. The long and the short of it is there is an order passed by the Family Court directing maintenance as against the husband of the Petitioner at the instance of the 4th Respondent(Ext.P6). Petitioner''s husband filed RPFC No. 197 of 2010 and this Court stayed the proceedings on condition that the Petitioner''s husband deposits the entire arrears vide Ext.P7. According to the Petitioner, Petitioner''s husband has remitted Rs. 32,500/- as evidenced by Ext.P8 receipt. It is stated that there is no sitting of the Family Court at Palakkad. The further allegation is that the 2nd Respondent came to the house of the Petitioner and threatened that she will be taken to the police station. It is stated that the allegation against her husband is false. There is further allegation of an incident which took place on 7.8.2010 to the effect that a police constable attached to the office of 7th Respondent came to the Petitioner''s house and directed her to be present before the 7th Respondent on 9.8.2010 in connection with the petition submitted by the 4th Respondent. Petitioner filed Ext.P9 petition.

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that, the police officer was in charge of executing the distress warrant apparently on the basis of the order passed by the Family Court, Palakkad and he was only executing the said order and he would submit that it is for the party to appraise the Family Court, Palakkad of the fact that its order has been stayed subject to deposit of arrears and that the arrears have been deposited and the warrant is to be recalled. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was called on 7.8.2010. Learned Government Pleader would deny the said allegation. He would submit that the Petitioner will not be harassed in any manner by the police officer in connection with the execution of distress warrant issued against the husband of the Petitioner. We record the said submission and close the writ petition.