IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14240 of 2008(T)
1. AMINA,AGED 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.SABIRA,W/O.NISSAR,
... Respondent
2. THE PROTECTION OFFICER,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/05/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the mother of the respondent in a proceedings
initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005. The daughter in law of the petitioner had filed the said
application and final orders have been passed as per order dated
18.03.08 in M.C.No.8 of 2008. A copy of the said order is
produced as Ext.P3 and in the operative portion, the following
directions are issued:
“1) The petitioner is directed to go to the
respondent’s house in order to take the passport, the
election ID card and the certificates and her personal
belongings immediately.
2) The respondent is directed to give the
petitioner a monthly sum of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.500/- for
her child towards their maintenance charges
immediately.
3) If any vacant house is available in the name
of the respondent the petitioner is at liberty to occupy
the same immediately.”
2. The petitioner has no grievance against directions 1
and 2 above. In fact she has no objection even against direction
W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 2
No.3 also. Her objection is against what transpired after these
directions were issued. It is submitted that in purported
execution of direction No.3, a house was broken open and the
claimant, ie. the petitioner’s daughter in law was inducted into
possession. It was asserted by the daughter in law that the said
house belongs to the son of the petitioner herein, her husband.
3. According to the petitioner. She is the owner in
possession of the house. She was thus illegally deprived of
possession of the house and her daughter in law is now in
occupation of the same allegedly along with her parents. The
petitioner herein approached the learned Magistrate with an
application under Ext.P8 asserting that she is the owner and not
her son. In that application, the learned Magistrate had
conducted an enquiry and it is submitted that the said application
(a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8) is posted for orders to
28.05.08.
4. It is at this stage that the petitioner has rushed to this
Court. What is her grievance ? Why has she rushed to this Court
without waiting for the disposal of Ext.P8. She, after having
chosen to move the learned Magistrate with an application like
Ext.P8, must normally wait till the same is disposed of to mount
her challenge if any.
W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 3
5. It is significant that the son of the petitioner has not
chosen to challenge any of the orders. The question whether the
house in question belongs to the petitioner herein or her son will
certainly have to be decided by enquiry before the learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate is already seized of the
matter and if the submissions at the Bar were to be accepted, the
said proceedings are to be disposed of on 28.05.08.
6. I do not, in these circumstances, find any necessity or
justification to invoke the Constitutional powers under Article
226/227 of the Constitution of India to issue any directions in the
matter. The petitioner had voluntarily filed Ext.P8. She has
admittedly taken part in the proceedings. She must now wait for
the order to be passed by the learned Magistrate. If she is
aggrieved by any such order, needless to say, she has the
remedy under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to go in appeal to challenge any
such order.
7. At any rate, I am not satisfied that any directions need
be issued at this stage.
8. The dispute is only regarding the execution of direction
No.3 in the order dated 18.03.08. That dispute which is now
W.P(C). No.14240 of 2008 4
raised has certainly got to be resolved by the learned Magistrate
in Ext.P8 proceedings. No interference is necessary at this stage.
9. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. I expect
the learned Magistrate to dispose of Ext.P8 petition which is said
to have been filed as early as on 31.03.08 as expeditiously as
possible – at any rate, within a period of 15 days from the date on
which a copy of this judgment is placed before the learned
Magistrate, if the same is not disposed of on 28.05.08.
10. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-