IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 OP (FC).No. 1318 of 2010(R) -------------------------------------- OP.616/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER (S): ----------------------- VIJAYAKRISHNAN.P.V., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PERUMBAYIL VENUGOPALAN, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KOZHINJAMPARA, P.O.KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REKHA, W/O.VIJAYAKRISHNAN, 'SREERAGAM', VANIYAR STREET, P.O.NALLEPPILLY, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 553. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, CHITTOOR.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 101. R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K BABU THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(FC) No.1318 of 2010-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks to expunge the observation contained in Ext.P7 order that the petitioner has no personal right to trespass into the house and property of the Ist respondent without any basis. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is the husband of the Ist respondent. Their relationship became strained. There is an earlier writ petition filed as Ext.P1. Petitioner filed O.P.616/2009 seeking divorce alleging adultery against the Ist respondent and another. Ext.P2 is the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition. There is reference to report of Psychologist. The writ petition was finally disposed of by Ext.P3 and it is made clear in the judgment that in the unlikely event of any threat to the life of the petitioners or their property, it will be open to them to seek appropriate orders from the Family Court. Thereafter, the Ist respondent filed a petition before the Family Court alleging that the petitioner had abused and threatened the OPFC 1318/2010 -2- Ist respondent and her two minor children on 8.11.2009. Petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection . Ext.P6 is the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Family Court Thrissur ordering protection to the Ist respondent and her two minor children. 3. We heard Sri.P.K.Sajeev, learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the observation in Ext.P7 of trespass was made without even calling for report of the police. He also denies the allegation. In the nature of the relationship between the parties and the apprehension entertained by the Ist respondent and also having regard to the jurisdictional exercise of this Court which is by way of judicial review and noticing that there is no jurisdictional infirmity we decline to interfere. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner actually purchased the property in the name of the wife utilising his funds and a proceeding is pending for declaration of his title. While declining to interfere we make it clear that, being an interim order when the matter finally comes up a decision will be taken by the Family Court untrammeled by any observation regarding the rights over OPFC 1318/2010 -3- the property contained in Ext.P7. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS