Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner complains about threat to life and property from third respondent, who is her adopted daughter, and the second respondent, who is stated to have recently married the third respondent against the wishes of the petitioner. The writ petitioner, vividly, states the manner in which she, a widow, is taking care of her son, who is certified with 80% permanent disability, which appears to be a combination of physical and mental disorders. The matrimonial relationship between respondents 2 and 3 is no ground for them to visit the petitioner's life or property against her will and wishes. She is entitled to provide support and protection to her challenged son as well.
3. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 argued that the writ WP(C) 23772/14 -2-
petition is only a reflection of the petitioner's discord owing to inter-community marriage between respondents 2 and 3. We are not prepared to take it that way. This writ petition reflects the excruciating agony of a mother, who brought up a girl child after adopting her and even sending her for medical education. On the full scheme of facts of the case in hand, we think that the petitioner would have even made the adoption, looking forward to a child for support in future, when her biological son was a challenged person in the physical and mental sense. The manner in which the 3rd respondent has acted disturbing her mother's emotional status does not commend acceptance in the constitutional format, which recognizes duties of citizens to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture and to cherish and follow the noble ideals, which inspired our national struggle for freedom, and to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and to have compassion for living creatures. The duties expected from one who is a daughter and a sister are vast; more so when, her brother is a physically and mentally WP(C) 23772/14 -3-
challenged person and the widowed mother is advancing in age.
4. Be that as it may, for the present, it is sufficient for us to record the submission on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they do not intend to cause any inconvenience, disturbance or challenge to the life or property of the petitioner and her son.
In the result, this writ petition is ordered directing that in the event of the petitioner making any further complaint about any real apprehension of threat to life or property, the jurisdictional police officer will look into it and do the needful.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg