1. Heard Mr. M.B. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, learned advocate for respondent No.2 appearing on Caveat.
2. Mr.
Upadhyay, learned advocate for respondent No.2 prays for time to file affidavit in reply. At his request, the matter is adjourned to 14.6.2012.
3. Till then, the impugned order dated 11.5.2012 shall remain stayed.
4. This Court is conscious of the fact that by the impugned order, the mother is granted Police protection against his son by the Competent Court. By this stay order, it is not to be understood that the mother is not entitled to Police protection. However, on overall consideration of the matter, a picture has emerged that there is property dispute amongst the brothers inter-se. Within family itself, the properties are exchanged by the sale deed, family partitions, etc. Earlier the mother used to stay with one son, then she started residing with the other son. The age of the mother is stated to be of about 90 years and by the application on which the order is passed by the Court below which is the subject matter of this petition, a picture was sought to be created that the mother who is aged about 90 years is going to field for farming purpose and that is obstructed by another son who, as claimed by him, is in possession of the land. For this very purpose, earlier the son with whom the mother now resides had prayed for Police protection which was rejected. Now an application with the thumb impression of the mother, and as stated above of 90 years of age, was moved before the Competent Court for Police protection. The mother of 90 years of age going with lady Police constable to the field for farming purpose seeking protection against his one son in a village, prima facie, appears to be a proxy war between the brothers. Keeping this aspect in mind, the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing.
[PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] mrpandya Top