IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4543 of 2010(R) ----------------------------------------- ----- OP.104/2010 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- A.NASEEMA, W/O. AHAMMED KOYA PAZH VEETTIL, NELLIMUKKU, THIRUMULLAVARAM PO KOLLAM 691 012. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. VIJAYA BANK, KOLLAM BRANCH VADAYATTUKOTTA ROAD, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. NISSAR S/O.BASHEER, RAJILA COTTAGE ADICHANALLOOR TALUK, KOLLAM TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SHRI K. ANAND, SC. ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.4543 OF 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 2.2.10 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.187/10 IN OP.NO.104/10 DATED 25.1.10 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.104 OF 2010 ALONG WITH I.A.NO.187 OF 2010 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 4543 OF 2010 P --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd February, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that Ext.P2 order no way restrain the petitioner in the W.P.(C). to operate locker No.14 of the 1st respondent Bank availed by her along with her daughter-in-law; (ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to operate locker No.14 independently since the same is availed in the name of the petitioner as well.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner along with her daughter Sumna availed locker No.14 of the first respondent Bank in their names. Ext.P1 is the Certificate dated 2.2.2010. It is stated that the Locker has been WPC.4543/2010P 2 operated by the petitioner since 31.12.1999. Gold ornaments belonging to the family members are kept in the Locker. Petitioner has also kept in the locker 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her daughter-in-law Mrs. Shyni. Petitioner's son is working abroad and his wife Shyni alone is residing with them. The gold ornaments are to be worn by her in family functions. Petitioner stands prevented from operating the locker on the strength of Ext.P2 order passed by the Family Court, Kollam. O.P. No.104 of 2010 is an Original Petition filed by the son-in-law of the petitioner, namely the second respondent, against the petitioner's daughter. In the same, I.A.No.187 of 2010 was filed for injunction against the petitioner's daughter and the first respondent Bank. On the strength of the same, an injunction order has been passed and the order as communicated to the Bank, is produced as Ext.P2. By virtue of Ext.P2, the petitioner's daughter is forbidden to operate the locker. Complaint of the petitioner is that though the locker stands in the name of the petitioner and her daughter and WPC.4543/2010P 3 though the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings instituted by the son-in-law against the daughter, and that though she is not a party to Ext.P2 and though the petitioner wants to take away 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to her daughter-in-law, which is kept in the locker, she is not being allowed to operate the locker by the first respondent on account of Ext.P2 order. A Counter Affidavit is filed by the second respondent. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Admittedly, the locker stands in the name of the petitioner and her daughter. There is an order by the Family Court prohibiting operation of the locker by the daughter. The request of the petitioner to operate the locker by her on the strength of her being the joint subscriber to the locker facility, is not a request which we think it appropriate to consider in a Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the second respondent points out that neither the daughter-in-law, nor the daughter is present before this Court. There is an order by the competent Forum. In WPC.4543/2010P 4 substance, the request of the petitioner may amount to variation of the said order. In such circumstances, we would think that it is more appropriate that we relegate the petitioner to approach the Family Court itself and seek appropriate orders. In view of the urgency pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of the Writ Petition as follows: We relegate the petitioner to approach the Family Court, Kollam in respect of Ext.P2 order and seek appropriate directions/clarifications. In case an application is filed by the petitioner in this direction before the Family Court, Kollam, the Family Court, Kollam will take it up, hear the parties and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date on which the application is moved. K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk.