IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29045 of 2007(G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MRINALINI @ NALINI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 42 YEARS, ERATTU CHEERAN HOUSE, KAYHIBRAM, CHAVAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPPAD REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, ERATTU CHEERAN HOUSE, P.O. KAYHIBRAM, CHAVAKKAD. *ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED: R3. SHYLAJA RAMACHANDRAN, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, ERATT HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM. R4. PUSHPARAJAN, S/O.AYYAN, ERATT HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM. (*ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 17/01/2008 IN I.A.NO.920/2008) BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL - R1 ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.29045/2007 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE OP 892/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF STATUSQUE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29045 OF 2007 G ------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner and her husband are at logger heads. She moved the Family Court, Thrissur and obtained Exhibit P2 interim order in her favour. She submits, she is not able to enjoy the protection of that order and it is being violated by the opposite party therein, who is the second respondent herein. The petitioner prays for a direction to the police to help her to enjoy the fruits of Exhibit P2. 2. If Exhibit P2 is not respected or violated by the opposite party therein, the petitioner's remedy is to move the court which passed the order. That court has got ample powers to address the police also to render assistance to the petitioner, if found necessary. In view of the said position, the Writ Petition is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the Family Court for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. dsn