IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3694 of 2011() ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHAJATNAN, NAVANEETHAM, THEMKURISSY, PALAKKAD - 678 671. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ]RI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 671. 2. RAKHI.S., W/O.SHAJATNAN, VAKKINICHALLA, KUTTIPPALLAM P.O., CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 101. 3. SURENDRAN, VAKKINICHALLA, KUTTIPPALLAM P.O., CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 101. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, ROYAL INDIAN NURSERY SCHOOL, AMPATTUPALAYAM, CHITTOOR P.O, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 101. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3694 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Respondents 2 and 3 are the petitioner's wife and her father. It is stated that, in the petitioner's marriage with the 2nd respondent, she has given birth to a daughter called Swethasree, who is admitted in a school of which the 4th respondent is the Principal. The relationship between the parties is strained and OP No.141/2009, filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending consideration of the Family Court, Palakkad. It is stated that against the order passed by the Family Court in IA 3223/09, visitorial rights of the petitioner to the child has been denied. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to allow the petitioner to see his daughter. A writ of prohibition against the 3rd respondent restraining him from interfering with the married life of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and from causing any obstruction to the petitioner's right to visit his daughter is also sought for. 2. As far as the prayer for writ of prohibition is concerned, WPC No. 3694/11 :2 : writ of prohibition will lie only against a subordinate Tribunal acting in excess of its jurisdiction. Contrary to that, such a writ has been sought by the petitioner against his father in law, which is absolutely misconceived. 3. The District Collector has no role at all to play in a dispute of this nature and if that be so, the issue raised in this writ petition is purely a private dispute, which cannot be subject to a writ petition. That issues raised are matters which are to be dealt with by a Family Court and not a Writ Court. Therefore, the prayers sought for by the petitioner is misconceived. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp