IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27761 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OP.5831/2010 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MAJEDA, W/O. NAJEEB, RESIDING AT NISHA MANZIL, VELLOORKONAM,KADUVAYIL, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, ATTINGAL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.K.M.ALEXANDER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. NAJEEB, AGED 58 YEARS, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.384, RAJAJI NAGAR, PULIMOOD PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REMANI, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.LAITHA THULASI NIVAS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KADAKKAVOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DY.S.P.ATTINGAL. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 5. V.THULASEEDARAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This judgment must be read in continuation of our earlier order dated 07.09.2010. Report of the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nedumangad, dated 13.09.2010 is received. The learned counsel for the petitioner has gone through the said report. The learned Judge reports and the learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that in the circumstances mentioned in the report, time can be granted till 31.10.2010 to dispose of Exts.P6, P12 and P13 applications. 2. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. We accept the undertaking of the court below that Exts.P6, P12 and P13 applications shall be disposed of by 31.10.2010. No further directions are necessary. 3. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 2 W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 3 R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. The petitioner had filed O.P.No.583 of 2010 before the Family Court, Nedumangad. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner in that O.P is that her husband, the 1st respondent herein, who had executed a gift deed earlier in her favour and which gift deed was acted upon, had subsequently assigned the very same property to the 2nd respondent, another woman. According to the petitioner, she has a strained relationship with her husband. She had hence filed O.P.No.583 of 2010 and secured interim orders in her favour. 2. The present grievance of the petitioner is that ignoring the said order, the 2nd respondent and her henchmen are violating the order of the court and are causing difficulties to the petitioner. According to the petitioner this is being done by the 2nd respondent and her henchmen at the instance of and in collusion with the 1st respondent. She therefore filed Exts.P12 W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 4 and P13 applications. Ext.P12 application, it is submitted, is complaining about the violation of the interim order passed in Ext.P6 application and soliciting action on the part of the court to ensure compliance with the order of injunction. Ext.P13 petition is to request the court to afford police protection to ensure compliance with the interim order of injunction. We are cutting a long story short. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that influencing the police, the respondents are indulging in vexatious action against the petitioner also. 3. Be that as it may, the short present grievance is that Exts.P12 and P13 applications are not being disposed of. The respondents have entered appearance before the Family Court, but no action is being taken on Exts.P12 and P13 applications notwithstanding the fact that the respondents have not filed any objection to those petitions. Ext.P6 application for interim injunction has been granted initially and has been extended from time to time, but the same is also not disposed of finally. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, prays that directions may be issued to the Family Court to dispose of Exts.P6, P12 and P13 applications as expeditiously as possible. 4. We find merit in that grievance. We have no hesitation to agree that if the above summarisation of fact is W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 5 correct, the Family Court must proceed to dispose of Exts.P6, P12 and P13 applications as expeditiously as possible. The Family Court must also consider passing emergent interim orders if any necessary in these applications also. 5. We find no reason to assume that the Family Court shall not dispose of these applications. We deem it necessary that a report of the Family Court must be called for. Call for such report. In such report the Family Court shall apprise this Court of the stage of Exts.P6, P12 and P13 applications. We need only mention that if there be no legal impediment against the disposal of those applications, the Family Court must immediately take up those applications for consideration and pass appropriate orders. 6. Await report of the Family Court. Call on 17.09.2010. 7. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for immediate production before the Family Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/ W.P(C) No.27761 of 2010 6