IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28298 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KADIYAKKUTTY, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.KALLANKUTH MOIDEEN, THOTTAKODAN HOUSE, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MARIYAMU, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.KADIYAKKUTTY/KALLANKUTH MOIDEEN, THOTTAKODAN HOUSE, MATTATHOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME MINISTRY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPURAM. 4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM. 5. MUNAMPATH MOIDEEN, S/O.MOIDEEN, MATTATHOOR AMSOM, MATTATHOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 6. THOTTAPADAM MADAN SULAIKA, W/O.MOIDEEN, MATTATHOOR AMSOM, MATTATHOOR P.O. TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 7. MOHAMED RAFEEQUE, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY HAJI, MATTATHOOR AMSOM, MATTATHOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI SALIM P.A. FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.28298 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is her daughter. The 5th respondent is the son of the first petitioner and the 6th respondent is his wife. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to assure grant of police protection to the petitioners lives and properties from the affronts of the respondents, 5, 6 and their men. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to take immediate steps to restore to the petitioners' custody their immovable (sic-movable) properties removed from House No.6/516 to the house of the 7th respondent.” According to the petitioners, they are residing in House No.6/516 of Othukungal Grama Panchayat and the party respondents are threatening and harassing them and trespassing into the said house. But, we notice that the second respondent has moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram under the provisions of the Protection of W.P.(C)No.28298/08 -2- Women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking appropriate reliefs. But, the said petition has been dismissed by the said Court by Exhibit P8. In paragraph 5 of the said order, it is held as follows: “5. In the affidavit accompanying with this petition, it is clearly stated that petitioner is now living with her husband. She occasionally visited her mother who was staying with respondents. The respondents are living in the disputed house. The petitioner's mother has been ousted recently from that house and she has sought asylum in the house of the petitioner. It might have provoked the petitioner in approaching the Court with this petition. Since the petitioner has a house to live in and she has not sufficiently stated in the affidavit that she has been living in the disputed house in the recent past along with respondents, I am not inclined to pass an interim exparte order at this juncture. An exparte order against the respondents will cause irreparable loss to the respondents. I am of the opinion that the matter should be decided after a fair trial.” The above quoted order would show that the learned Magistrate has found that prima facie the respondents therein who are respondents 5 and 6 herein and others are residing in the disputed property. In view of the above position, the claim made in Exhibit P9 representation filed before the police by the petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage. Going by the facts of the case, there is a civil dispute between the W.P.(C)No.28298/08 -3- petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 regarding the possession of House No.6/516 mentioned above. The said dispute has to be resolved through the civil court and police cannot be asked to interfere with it. 2. The petitioners have yet another grievance. They say the movables kept by them in the aforementioned house have been removed by respondents 4 and 5. But, the police have not taken any action, it is submitted. If that be so, they have to avail the remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to redress their grievance. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. But, this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action, if any cognizable offence is reported. It is also clarified that the observations in this judgment will not affect the contentions of both sides before other forums. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn