Kerala High Court
Bushara vs The State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 14466 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BUSHARA,
AGED 30 YEARS,
W/O. NISSAR,
PONTHELAVALAPPIL HOUSE,
KARALAM DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680711.
BY ADV N.L.BITTO
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001
2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR P.O., -680003.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KATTOOR POLICE STATION, KATTOOR P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680702.
4 RAIFATH,
AGED 42,
D/O. BUHARIKKUTTY,
KEEZHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THALIKULAM DESOM, THALIKKULAM P.O.,
THALIKKULAM VILLAGE,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680569.
5 MUHAMMED IQBAL,
AGED 51,
D/O.MUHARIKKUTTY,
KEEZHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALIKULAM DESOM,
THALIKKULAM P.O., THALIKKULAM VILLAGE,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680569.
6 RASEENA SHAMEER
AGED 30,
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
2
W/O.SHAMEER,
ARAKKAVEETIL HOUSE,
THALIKULAM DESOM,
THALIKKULAM P.O.,
THALIKKULAM VILLAGE,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680569.
7 SHAMEER,
AGED 38,
S/O.BAVA,
KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THALIKULAM DESOM, THALIKKULAM P.O.,
THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680569.
BY ADVS.
MUHAMMED YASIL
THAJMAL SALEEK E.V
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI E.C BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of October, 2021
The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent,
along with respondents 5 to 7 - who are her relatives, are
causing her extreme vexation, with the intent of forcing her
out of her residential building, where she is presently living
along with her mother.
2. The petitioner explains that the 4th respondent is
married to her brother and there are some matrimonial
issues between them, based on which, the said respondent
approached the competent Magistrate's Court and obtained
a residential order to stay in the building owned by her. She
explains that this appears to have been done because the 4 th
respondent and her brother were earlier living in this
house - which was subsequently purchased by her - and she
asserts that the said respondent cannot stake any claim on it
subsequent to such purchase by her.
3. The petitioner states that in spite of the fact that
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
the property remains in her name, the threats and
intimidations continued and that she was thus constrained to
approach the 3rd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police,
seeking protection, but that no action has been taken
thereon, thus forcing her to approach this Court through this
writ petition.
4. Sri.N.L.Bitto - learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner supplemented the afore contentions, saying that
his client was earlier attacked by the party respondents,
which is evident from Ext.P5 FIR; but that, since the Police
have not taken any further action thereon, the said
respondents have been emboldened to take law into their
own hands repeatedly and therefore, that she is now fears
for her life, as also for that of her mother. The learned
counsel therefore, prayed that the 3rd respondent be directed
to afford adequate and effective protection to his client, as
also her mother, so as to enable them to reside in their
residential house.
5. Sri.Muhammed Yasil - learned counsel appearing
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
for respondents 4 to 7, controverted the afore submissions,
saying that the fourth among them were residing along with
her husband in the house in question in the past and that her
husband sold it to the petitioner only in March 2021. He
submitted that the sale was orchestrated by the petitioner
and her brother, so as to oust the 4 th respondent from the
house, thus leaving her no option but to have approached the
Competent Magistrate Court, under the provisions of the
Domestic Violence Act and to obtain a residential order. He
submitted that when the 4th respondent attempted to enter
the house on the strength of the said order, she was
obstructed by the petitioner and that this is where the entire
controversy arose. He, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
6. Sri.E.C.Bineesh - learned Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents, submitted that, as is
clear from the afore narrative, the disputes between the
petitioner and the 4th respondent are in their personal
domestic realm and that the Police are not in a position to
intervene into the same. He, however, added that the life of
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
the petitioner has been sufficiently protected, even though
no interim order had been issued by this Court and that the
Police have done so, taking note of their constitutional
obligations.
7. When I consider the afore submissions, there can
be little doubt that, on one hand, the petitioner claims
exclusive ownership rights over the house in question; while
on the other, the 4th respondent claims a right to stay there,
on the strength of the residential order obtained by her from
the competent Magistrate's Court. Obviously, therefore, both
the parties have a right, as of now, to reside in the building
in question and they cannot obstruct each other from doing
so.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the
3rd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, to ensure that both
the petitioner and her mother, as also the 4th respondent are
allowed to reside in the house in question, without any threat
or intimidation being made out to each other and ensuring
that they are kept without harm from the other.
This shall be ensured by the 3 rd respondent by
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
deputing sufficient number of woman Police Officers, along
with male Police Officers, to the house in question, as and
when there is any complaint preferred by either of the
parties, relating to any obstruction or acts of violence being
caused by the other. The 3rd respondent will, however, keep
a close vigil on the area in question to ensure that law and
order is maintained by both sides with respect to the
residence in the house in question and that none of them are
allowed to breach peace in any manner whatsoever.
Needless to say, the afore directions will stand
modulated by any order to be issued by a competent Court at
the instance of either of the parties and the Police Officers
will maintain the law and order, taking note of the said
developments, if any, in future.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
NR/06/10/2021
W.P(C)No.14466 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOC.NO.321 OF 2021 OF THE
KATTOOR SRO DATED 6.3.2021.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL08035101045/2021 ISSUED FROM THE KARALAM
VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 22.3.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.391 OF 2021 OF
THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 4.4.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN IA.2 OF
2021 IN OS.391 OF 2021 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,
IRINJALAKUDA DATED 7.4.2021.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.357 OF 2021 OF
THE KATTOOR POLICE STATION DATED 07/07/2021.
