JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15 th day of June, 2022 W.P.(C).No.30304/2021 was filed by Annamma Geevarghese and John Geevarghese alleging that on complaints made by the 4th respondent, respondents 1 to 3 are harassing them and requiring them to be present before the police station.

2. W.P.(C) No.645/2022 is filed seeking directions to respondents 1 to 4 not to harass the petitioners at the instance of the 5th respondent. A prayer is also sought to direct respondents 1 to 4 not to summon the petitioners to the police station without any valid reason.

3. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that there is absolutely no intention to harass the petitioners or to summon them to the police station. It is submitted that on a complaint submitted by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.645/2022, a visit was conducted to the residence of the petitioners to verify the whereabouts and the well being of Smt.Annamma Geevarghese and John Geevarghese who are senior citizens aged about 76 and

75 respectively.

4. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.645/2022 is the niece of John Geevarghese and the 5th respondent is the brother of Annamma Geevarghese. It is contended that 1st petitioner and her family are looking after the senior citizens and that the 1st petitioner's uncle and aunt have no complaint against them.

5. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.30304/2021. It is contended therein that Smt.Annamma Geevarghese is the sister of the 4th respondent and Sri.John Geevarghese is his brother-in-law. It is submitted that they do not have any children and that they are residing along with the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.645/2022. It is stated that the senior citizens have considerable landed properties and that the 4th respondent who is the direct brother of Annamma Geevarghese is being prevented from visiting his sister and brother-in-law by Annamma George and her children. It is contended that the 4th respondent came to know that the senior citizens are administered with excessive medicines and that they are in illegal custody of Annamma George and her children. In the above circumstances, the 4th respondent had submitted a complaint before the police and that the police had only conducted an inspection in the matter. 6. A memo has been submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader and a copy of the complaint filed by the 4th respondent and the statements recorded from the 4th respondent as well as the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C).No.30304/2021 are produced therein.

7. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.30304/2021 are admittedly senior citizens who were residents of the United States of America and that there are allegations that they were in possession of large amounts of money in fixed deposit and considerable landed properties as well. In view of the provisions of Rule 20(2)(ii) of the Kerala Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, a visit by a police officer to verify the safety of a senior citizen at his/her place of residence cannot be characterised as a harassment either of the senior citizens or their care giver.

8. In the nature of the allegations raised in these writ petitions and the report made available by the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that a visit by the police along with a social worker or volunteer under the provisions of the Rules to ensure the safety of the senior citizens cannot be prevented by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.645/2022. These writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with the following directions :-

The police authorities shall not require the presence of the senior citizens in the police station. However, they will be free to carry out the visits to ensure the safety and proper maintenance of the senior citizens as provided in the Rules. In case, the senior citizens are being maintained properly by the care givers, no further harassment