IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25363 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- VIMALRAJ, S/O.JANARDHANA KURUP, 'NIRMALA STHUTHY', NEAR SANTHIGIRI ASRAMAM, SANTHIGIRI P.O., KOLIYAKKOD, POTHANKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHANKODE POLICE STATION, POTHANKOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695584. 3. BEENA, D/O.OMANA AMMA, KUZHIVILLAPUTHEN VEEDU, SANTHIGIRI P.O., KOLIYAKODE VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695541. 4. OMANA AMMA, D/O.BHARGAVATHIAMMA, KUZHIVILLAPUTHEN VEEDU, SANTHIGIRI P.O., KOLIYAKODE VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695541. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ WP(C).No. 25363 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TURE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 7-6-2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT IN OS 667/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31-8-2011 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 1-9-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE JJJ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 25363 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is seeking direction against the 2nd respondent, not to harass or interfere with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondents 3 & 4. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the sister and mother of the petitioner, respectively. According to the petitioner, 17 cents of property was assigned by the 4th respondent in favour of himself and his wife, by virtue of Ext.P1 deed. The 3rd respondent is residing in the remaining portion of property which is assigned by the mother in her favour. It is contended that the 3rd respondent had objected execution of a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner. She continues all efforts to see that Ext.P1 deed is cancelled. At the instigation of the 3rd respondent the 4th respondent filed a complaint under the provisions of the Prevention of WP(C). 25363/11 -2- Domestic Violence Act and a 'residence order' was obtained in favour of the 4th respondent. It is alleged that under the guise of the said order the 3rd respondent is attempting to trespass into the petitioner's property and to take usufructs therefrom in a forcible manner. However, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 667 of 2010, before the Munsiff Court, Nedumangad and a temporary injunction order was obtained as evident from Ext.P2. It is further alleged that, still the respondents 3 and 4 are causing harassments to the petitioner by submitting repeated complaints and that on the basis of such complaints the 2nd respondent is threatening the petitioner and interfering with the civil disputes. 2. Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, complaints were received from the side of the 4th respondent alleging that, inspite of obtaining the 'residence order', the WP(C). 25363/11 -3- petitioner is causing obstructions to the peaceful life of respondents 3 and 4. It is only in connection with the enquiry conducted on the basis of such complaints that the petitioner was requested to be present before the 2nd respondent. However, it is conceded that the parties are advised to seek appropriate remedy from the competent civil courts. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances as narrated above, we are convinced that there exists a dispute with respect to property owned by the family members. It is left open to the parties to resolve such disputes through competent civil courts. With respect to the order passed under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, the 4th respondent is free to approach the Magistrate, if there is any violation of such order. It is evident that there is no criminal case registered against the petitioner at the station house of the 2nd respondent. As such we make it clear that WP(C). 25363/11 -4- if the presence of the petitioner is required in connection with any enquiry or investigation, the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner, as contemplated under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The 2nd respondent will also ensure that no breach of peace or violence is arising out of the dispute between the parties and that life of the petitioners as well as respondents 3 and 4 is is not endangered. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-