M K REMYA Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

(2.) Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner's husband was an inmate in the Santhigiri Madom. He gave up his ascetic life and returned to homely life by marrying the petitioner. The party respondents 3 and 4 were the kudikidappukars in the property of the petitioner's father-in- law who gave ten cents to them as kudikidappu. Now the petitioner is having only 7.28 Ares of land. Respondents 3 and 4 were threatening the petitioner for selling the property. As the petitioner and her husband refused, they assaulted the petitioner and her husband. He underwent treatment. Respondents 3 and 4 continuing to threaten the petitioner and her husband.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. Adv.Sri.V.K.Peer Mohammed Khan, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he will enter appearance for the 4th respondent also, who is the brother of the 3rd respondent. He submits that petitioner's husband assaulted the 3rd respondent and a crime has also been registered. But he submits that respondents 3 and 4 have no intention to threaten the petitioner, as alleged.