Mathew Jacob vs Somi Jacob
2021 Latest Caselaw 6092 Ker

                                         1
OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                         &

                         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

       FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

                               OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA 1769/2019 IN OP 972/2019 OF
           FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 18.11.2019


PETITIONER/S:

                   MATHEW JACOB
                   AGED 72 YEARS
                   S/O.LATE T.C.MATHEW, BRUNNEN STR.8, 53347 ALFTER-
                   OEDEKOVEN, GERMANY.

                   BY ADVS.
                   SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
                   SRI.C.RAMAN

RESPONDENT/S:

                   SOMI JACOB,
                   AGED 72 YEARS
                   S/O.MATHEW JACOB, RESIDING AT THEVERTHOTTATHIL
                   HOUSE, KUMPLAMPOIKA.P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR, THEKKEKARA
                   MURI, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK,
                   PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689662.

                   R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANIL JOSE

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD                  ON
19.2.2021, THE COURT ON 19-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                             2
OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019




            A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & C.S.DIAS, JJ.
                ======================
                     OP(FC) No.717 of 2019
                ======================
            Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021.

                                      JUDGMENT

C.S.DIAS , J.

The petitioner is the respondent in OP

No.972/2019 of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The

respondent in this original petition had filed the above

case seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory

injunction to restrain the petitioner from entering the

petition scheduled property or from inducting

strangers and from interfering with the right title and

peaceful possession of the respondent. The parties are

husband and wife.

2. Along with the original petition, the

respondent filed IA No.1769/2019 (Ext P1) invoking

Secs 18 and 19 read with Sec.26 of the Protection of

Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, inter alia,

seeking an order of protection. The petitioner had

OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019

filed Ext P2 written objection to Ext P1 application,

refuting the allegations in the affidavit filed in support

of the application.

3. The Family Court, after considering the

pleadings and materials on record, by Ext P3

impugned order granted the respondent the following

reliefs:

a) The respondent has been restrained from committing any acts of domestic violence against the petitioner.

b) The respondent is restrained from bringing any other women or any other strangers in the petition scheduled properties.

c) The respondent is restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner of the scheduled house.

4. It is aggrieved by the above order, that the

petitioner is before this Court in this original petition

filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019

5. The Family Court on being prima facie

satisfied of the assertions made by the respondent in

the affidavit in support of Ext P1 application and the

materials on record and on finding that the respondent

had made out a prima facie case to restrain the

petitioner from committing any act of domestic

violence against the respondent passed the impugned

Ext P3 order. The Family Court also came to the

conclusion that if the said reliefs are not granted, it

would cause irreparable injury and hardship to the

respondent and that balance of convenience is in

favour of the respondent.

6. We have gone through the averments in the

affidavit accompanying Ext P1 application and Ext P2

written objection filed by the petitioner. Being fully

conscious of the fact that OP No.972/2019 is pending

consideration before the Family Court, we refrain from

considering the merits of the allegations in Ext P1 or

Ext P2. Going by the impugned order, we find that

the Family Court has exercised its discretion in favour

OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019

of the respondent after taking note of the factual

circumstances and the parameters laid down in law to

grant a protection order. We do not find any error of

the jurisdiction or illegality in Ext P3 impugned order,

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of

the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article

227 of the Constitution of India.

The original petition is without any merit and is

resultantly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                           C.S.DIAS

     SKS/19.2.2021                          JUDGE

OP (FC).No.717 OF 2019




                            APPENDIX
     PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

     EXHIBIT P1          THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1769 OF
                         2019 IN THE FAMILY CORT,
                         PATHANAMTHITTA.

     EXHIBIT P2          THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY

THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1769 OF 2019.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.1769 OF 2019 IN THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.