IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2011 / 22ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 2302 of 2007(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P. SUSHAMA, W/O.SRI.K.K.RAJENDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, NO.C.144 QUARTERS, V.S.S.C. HOUSING COLONY, THUMBA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. A.O./ESTATE MANAGER, ESTATE MANAGEMENT SECTION, VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. SPACE RESEARCH ORGANISATION, NEW DELHI. 4. K.K. RAJENDRAN, S.C.NO.25665, TECHN. F.CSL/APTG/AVN/VSSC, THUMBA, TRIVANDRUM-695 022. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,A.S.G.I, R4 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2302/2007-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION OP (HMA) NO.623/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE INJUNCTION PETITION FILED IN OP(HMA)NO.623/2006 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CANCELLATION ORDER NO. VSSC/P&GA/EMT/25665/2007/C-144, DTD. 04/01/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 12/01/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH SERVICE SCHEME REGISTRATION CARD NO.25665/3/V. ISSUED BY THE SR. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GSS, VSS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/05/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE R.4. BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICER, VGS/VSSC, TRIVANDRUM-22. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.P. 521/05. DTD. 29/07/2005. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 04/01/2007 ISSUED BY THE ESTATE MANAGER, V.S.S.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 2302 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the wife of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent along with the petitioner and their children were residing in the quarters provided by the 1st respondent, who is the employer of the 4th respondent. Differences arose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 order, by which, the 4th respondent was directed to vacate the quarters, which, according to the petitioner, was a ruse to evict the petitioner from the quarters in collusion with the 4th respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs; “A. That a writ of certiorari or other order be passed quashing Ext.P3. B. That a writ of mandamus or other order be passed directing the 2nd respondent not evict the petitioner and the children from Quarters No.C/144 V.S.S.C. Housing Colony, Thumba, Trivandrum. C. That respondents 1 and 2 be directed to consider Ext.P4 representation and the petitioner be given a personal hearing and necessary orders passed protecting the rights of the petitioner and minor children. 2. Originally this Court passed an interim order, which was extended until further orders on 4.7.2007. On 29.3.2007, this Court passed the following order: “None appears for the petitioner. Ext.P1 is the copy of a petition to set aside the decree of w.p.c.2302/07 2 divorce passed on consent in O.P.No.521/2005 by the Family Court. Whatever that be, the learned counsel for the VSSC states that Ext.P3 was issued because the petitioner was shown to have been divorced. The marriage between the petitioner and the 4th respondent led to O.P.No.521/2005 in which there is an order of divorce on mutual consent. But, Ext.P1 is an application filed in 2006 seeking annulment of that decree on the ground of fraud. Therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to act on Ext.P3 issued by the employer - VSSC - on 4-1- 2007 at this point of time. Hence, the interim order against eviction will continue for a period of four months. The official respondents will, if so advised, place a copy of this interim order before the Family Court where Ext.P1 proceedings are pending. If a copy of this order is so placed, the Family Court will consider the question whether on the basis of Ext.P1 the petitioner is entitled to residence under the expenses of the fourth respondent.” 3. Now it is submitted that the 4th respondent is no more entitled to reside in the quarters in view of Ext.R1(b) order. The petitioner's right to reside in the quarters is only as the wife of the 4th respondent. Once the 4th respondent is found not eligible to continue to occupy the quarters, the petitioner cannot hold on to the quarters on her own. Even otherwise, by Ext.R1(a) judgment, the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and, therefore, the petitioner has ceased to be the wife of the 4th respondent. In the above circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner can any more hope to continue to hold on to the quarters. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.2302/07 3