Basant, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the constitution to respondents 1 to 5 to afford protection to the petitioner and his assets against illegal, contumacious, wanton and violent acts of respondents 6 and 7 who are none other than his own married sons.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had given education and everything requisite in life for respondents 6 and 7and they are well educated. They are married. The mother of respondents 6 and 7, i.e. the wife of the petitioner expired on 2.1.2010. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 and 7 are employed abroad. After the death of his wife, they had all returned their place of employment. The petitioner allegedly came back and he was quickly followed by his sons, respondents 6 and 7. ACCORDING to the petitioner, his sons- respondents 6 and 7 are illegally demanding that he must assign some of his properties to them. He is not willing to abide by their demands. He is willing to act fairly and justly. But the demands of respondents 6 and 7 cannot be accepted as such. As the petitioner is not yielding to the demands of respondents 6 and 7, they are threatening and indulging in contumacious and violent conduct against the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. Respondents 6 and 7- the children of the petitioner have entered appearance through a counsel. They have a totally different story to advance. According to them, after the death of their mother, the petitioner wants to remarry some other woman. His attempt is to deprive respondents 6 and 7 - his children, of the properties in which they have a legal claim. They have not demanded assignment of any property belonging to the petitioner. But, there are properties standing in the joint name of the petitioner and his wife, i.e. the mother of respondents 6 and 7. Under the guise of an order of police protection, the petitioner is virtually attempting to steal a march over respondents 6 and 7 and deny their legitimate rights/claims in respect of joint properties belonging to the petitioner and their mother. Respondents 6 and 7 have no intention whatsoever to pose any threat to the life or person of the petitioner. They do not have objection against grant of police protection for the life of the petitioner provided the same will not be misutilised against respondents 6 and 7 to settle the disputes relating to the property. No order of police protection may be given for the assets claimed by the petitioner as such, as they do not belong to the petitioner exclusively, but belong jointly to the petitioner and the legal heirs of his deceased wife including respondents 6 and 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the petitioner is not seeking any orders of police protection for the assets of the petitioner. Such disputes shall be resolved in accordance with law by initiating appropriate proceedings. The petitioner only prays that an order of police protection may be granted for the life of the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 submits that respondents 6 and 7 are not available in India and the assumption that they may pose threat to the life and person of the petitioner is perverse and puerile.
(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, after taking instructions, submits that in the perception of respondents 1 to 5, there is no existing threat against the life or person of the petitioner. If there be any such threat and if genuine complaints are received, the police officials/respondents shall take necessary action to deter such threats/violence. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We record the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 that they do not want to pose any threat to the life and person of the petitioner. We accept that submission. We record the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner does not want to seek any order for protection of his properties. Disputes regarding properties will have to be settled by the parties by resort to appropriate proceedings before the civil court. They have to initiate proceedings and seek interim orders, if any such orders are required. Police need not intervene in the civil dispute between the petitioner and respondents 6 to 7. But, we are satisfied that the prayer for protection for the life of the petitioner is reasonable, considering the nature of disputes between the parties. We are accepting the submission of respondents 6 and 7 that they shall not pose any threat. We accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader that action, if any, necessary shall be taken by respondents 1 to 5. No specific directions for police protection can need or deserves to be issued, in these circumstances.;