IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14240 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- AMINA,AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.LATE SRI.MOIDU, MURUKKOLI HOUSE,VALAD P.O., MANANTHAVADY. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. A.SABIRA,W/O.NISSAR, ARAKKA VEETTIL,KATTAYAD P.O., VELLAMUNDA,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. THE PROTECTION OFFICER, KALPETTA,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the mother of the respondent in a proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The daughter in law of the petitioner had filed the said application and final orders have been passed as per order dated 18.03.08 in M.C.No.8 of 2008. A copy of the said order is produced as Ext.P3 and in the operative portion, the following directions are issued: “1) The petitioner is directed to go to the respondent's house in order to take the passport, the election ID card and the certificates and her personal belongings immediately. 2) The respondent is directed to give the petitioner a monthly sum of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.500/- for her child towards their maintenance charges immediately. 3) If any vacant house is available in the name of the respondent the petitioner is at liberty to occupy the same immediately.” 2. The petitioner has no grievance against directions 1 and 2 above. In fact she has no objection even against direction W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 2 No.3 also. Her objection is against what transpired after these directions were issued. It is submitted that in purported execution of direction No.3, a house was broken open and the claimant, ie. the petitioner's daughter in law was inducted into possession. It was asserted by the daughter in law that the said house belongs to the son of the petitioner herein, her husband. 3. According to the petitioner. She is the owner in possession of the house. She was thus illegally deprived of possession of the house and her daughter in law is now in occupation of the same allegedly along with her parents. The petitioner herein approached the learned Magistrate with an application under Ext.P8 asserting that she is the owner and not her son. In that application, the learned Magistrate had conducted an enquiry and it is submitted that the said application (a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8) is posted for orders to 28.05.08. 4. It is at this stage that the petitioner has rushed to this Court. What is her grievance ? Why has she rushed to this Court without waiting for the disposal of Ext.P8. She, after having chosen to move the learned Magistrate with an application like Ext.P8, must normally wait till the same is disposed of to mount her challenge if any. W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 3 5. It is significant that the son of the petitioner has not chosen to challenge any of the orders. The question whether the house in question belongs to the petitioner herein or her son will certainly have to be decided by enquiry before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate is already seized of the matter and if the submissions at the Bar were to be accepted, the said proceedings are to be disposed of on 28.05.08. 6. I do not, in these circumstances, find any necessity or justification to invoke the Constitutional powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to issue any directions in the matter. The petitioner had voluntarily filed Ext.P8. She has admittedly taken part in the proceedings. She must now wait for the order to be passed by the learned Magistrate. If she is aggrieved by any such order, needless to say, she has the remedy under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to go in appeal to challenge any such order. 7. At any rate, I am not satisfied that any directions need be issued at this stage. 8. The dispute is only regarding the execution of direction No.3 in the order dated 18.03.08. That dispute which is now W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 4 raised has certainly got to be resolved by the learned Magistrate in Ext.P8 proceedings. No interference is necessary at this stage. 9. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I expect the learned Magistrate to dispose of Ext.P8 petition which is said to have been filed as early as on 31.03.08 as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 15 days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the learned Magistrate, if the same is not disposed of on 28.05.08. 10. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-