IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2264 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANITHA KESAVADAS, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.KESAVADAS, RESIDING AT SRIVANI, PERANDOOR ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17, (PROPRIETRIX, SNOW WHITE SOAPS AND DETERGENTS, SNOW VALLEY, KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA). BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA (RURAL), ALUVA - 683 101. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNAD POLICE STATION,PATTIMATTAM P.O. - 683 562. 3. K.BABUKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNJIKRISHNA PILLAI, AYINIKKATTU VEEDU, KIDANGAYAM, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 518. 4. K.VENUGOPAL, S/O.LATE KUNJIKRISHNA PILLAI, ....DO.DO..... R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2264/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5578/02 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P1(A): COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5576/02 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OFTHE PETITIONER'S FATHER. P2: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN O.P.NO.1683/2009. P3: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD 9/03/2010 ISSUED TOTHE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN IA.NO.1705/10 IN O.P.NO.600/2010. P5: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD. 17/12/2010 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 23/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR. P6(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 23/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST.EXE.ENGINEER, KSEB,KIZHAKKAMBALAM. P6(B): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 27/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FACTORIES INSPECTOR. P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.13/01/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPDT. OF POLICE, ALUVA. P7(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 13/01/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KUNNATHUNADU POLICE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(Civil) No.2264 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basant, J. The petitioner, a woman has come to this court with this writ petition seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner to exercises acts of ownership and possession in respect of her property which are being objected to by the third respondent, her husband and the 4th respondent, his brother. 2. The spouses are logger heads. A petition for divorce is pending before the Family Court. 3. There was a civil litigation between the parties and the same was settled as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 4.12.2009 on the basis of consent of the parties. One of the terms of the settlement is that the third respondent, the husband, can run an industrial unit in the property for a period of one year with effect from 1.12.2009. The said period has expired on 30.11.2010. But the third respondent has not surrendered the property to the petitioner. Not only has he not surrendered the property to the WPC 2264/2011 2 petitioner, he along with the 4th respondent is obstructing the entry of the petitioner into that property as also adjacent property about which there is no dispute. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions may be issued to afford police protection to the petitioner. 4. Respondents 3 and 4, though served, have not chosen to enter appearance. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions from respondents 1 and 2 submits that it is true that Ext.P2 settlement was reached and O.P.No.1683 of 2009 was disposed of in terms of the settlement. But, according to the learned Government Pleader, there is surviving disputes between the parties as to whether the terms of the settlement have been complied with or not. According to the third respondent, the husband of the petitioner, the terms have not been complied with. In these circumstances, he has gone to the Family Court with I.A.No.5431 of 2010 for interim directions against the petitioner from physically throwing him out of possession. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is, thus, disputes between the parties about the enforcement of Ext.P2 order. In these circumstances, the police cannot determine the rights of WPC 2264/2011 3 the parties. The parties are already before the civil (family) court. They may be directed to get the disputes resolved by seeking appropriate directions from the Family Court, submits the learned Government Pleader. 5. Notwithstanding the failure of respondents 3 and 4 to appear before this court, it is evident that the dispute is virtually one relating to execution of Ext.P2 order. The submissions of the learned Government Pleader satisfies us that there are disputes between the parties about the enforceability of Ext.P2. In these circumstances, police cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting and executing Ext.P2 order. We cannot compel the police to take over that responsibility. 6. With the observation that the petitioner and the party respondents may seek appropriate directions from the Family Court, this petition is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. srd WPC 2264/2011 4