Shaffique, J. Practitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection based on an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. According to the petitioner, though such an order had been obtained, party respondents are not permitting her to reside in the said building and no action is being taken by the police in the matter.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 9th respondent referring to a report submitted by the police wherein it is indicated as under:
“4. It is most respectfully submitted that it is the petitioner who is in the nature of creating disharmony and threatening situation in the residence where these respondents live along with the petitioner. The situation in the house has reached a circumstance whereby the 9th respondent was constrained to approach the police and FIR No. 539 dated 17.2.2014 was registered by the police for offences under section 341, 323, 324, 506(2) IPC. The true copy of the FIR No. 539 dated 17.02.2014 and its English translation are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R9(a) and Ext. R9(a1). It is submitted that as a counter blast to the above that incident the petitioner has filed Ext. P1 on which Ext. P2 interim order is passed. On the complaint from the 9th respondent, the Karunagapally police registered FIR No. 2775 dated 13.08.2014 under section 498A IPC.
5. It is respectfully submitted that all the allegations levelled against these respondents are totally concocted and false. These respondents have never created any threat to the petitioner nor her peaceful residence. All the allegations in contra stated in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 are absolutely incorrect. It is respectfully submitted that the 9th respondent has sought information regarding Exhbit P5 complaint filed by the petitioner and its proceedings. As per the information received by this respondent, the police has conducted enquiry on the matter and has arrived at a conclusion that after enquiry and questioning the nearby residents it is understood that the allegations made by the complainant/petitioner about the respondents and the police are against truth and therefore no further action is needed in the complaint. The true copy of the information received by the 9th respondent from the state information officer and its English translation are produced herewith and marked as Ext. R9(b) and R9(b1).”
On this basis, it is contended that they are not obstructing the petitioner but the petitioner wants them to be evicted from the property.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that crimes have been registered against the petitioner as well.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, we do not think that this is a case in which police can interfere. The petitioner cannot demand that she alone can reside in the building. She too has a right to reside in the building. Therefore, police cannot do anything against the respondents other than permitting the petitioner to reside in the said premises.
Having regard to Ext. R9(b) report, we do not think that this is a fit case in which police protection can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, recording the statement of the party respondents, the writ petition is closed.
Tds/ Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.