Writ Petition No. 14559 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14559 OF 2020 (GM-POLICE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BETWEEN: R. JAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O T. VENKATESH, RESIDING AT NO.61, EWS DATTAGALLI IIND PHASE, IIIRD STAGE, 3RD CROSS, RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, MYSORE 570 001. (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND PERSONAL AFFAIRS, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MYSORE MIRZA ROAD, NAYABHA MOHALLA, MYSORE CITY - 570 001. 3. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUVEMPUNAGARA POLICE STATION, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE - 570 001. 4. T. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O V. THIMMAIAH, CLASS IV EMPLOYEES DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, MYSORE - 570 001.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHATTER, AGA FOR R1 TO R3. …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO R-2 TO HOLD AN ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE ILLEGAL ACTS OF R-3 AND SUBMIT A REPORT TO THIS HONBLE COURT AND PUNISH THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS. AND ETC., THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners and respondent No.4 are wife and husband respectively. Respondent No.4 had filed a proceedings in MC.No.441/2010 for dissolution of marriage, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.10.2013 upon it being contested by the petitioner herein. 2. Subsequently, respondent Nos.4 filed one other petition in MC No.669/2017 under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This time, respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein, was placed exparte and exparte decree of divorce came to be granted on 01.10.2018. Miscellaneous petition C.Mis.No.91/2003 has been filed by the present - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.PC and the judgment in MC No.669/2017 was set aside and the matter restored to file. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently, MC No.669/2019 also came to be dismissed alleging that the petitioner is in possession of house property bearing No.EWS 61, II phase, III stage, Dattagalli, Mysore and the said possession has been interfered with by the respondent No.4. 4. The petitioner had lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police on 03.12.2020. Another complaint had been filed by the daughter of respondent No.4 allegedly from another marriage that the petitioner was interfering with the possession of respondent No.4, the complainant and her mother. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the possession of the petitioner is unlawfully interfered - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 with by the jurisdictional police on the basis of such complaint filed by the daughter of respondent No.4 and the belongings of the petitioner has been thrown out of the house and the doors of the house are locked. It is in this background, petitioner has filed the above petition. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner was never in possession of the premises and as such, the question of petitioner claiming possession and interference therewith would not arise. 7. Learned AGA submits that police have not taken any action as alleged by the petitioner. In fact the police have issued an endorsement on 23.12.2020 and have informed both the complainants i.e petitioner, who as complainant and respondent 4's daughter, that the dispute is civil in nature and they need to agitate the same before the appropriate Civil Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 8. A perusal of the documents would indicate that in MC No.669/2017, respondent No.4 has categorically deposed that the house, which is allotted by MUDA i.e., the subject property in his favour is kept under lock and key by petitioner herein and as such has sought for hand over of the same. The said relief came to be rejected in MC No.669/2017 by the exparte judgment dated 01.10.2018. That being the case, the question of respondent No.4 and her daughter claiming that they are in possession of the premises in the year 2020 and submitting a complaint would not arise. There is no particular document, which has been placed on record by respondent No.4 to indicate that respondent No.4 is in possession of the aforesaid premises, except to baldly contend that they are in possession. 9. This contention is negetived by the observation made by the First Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysore in paragraph 16 of the judgment dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 01.10.2018 in MC No.669/2017. The endorsement which has been relied upon by the learned AGA, indicating that the dispute are civil in nature and directing the complainants to approach the appropriate civil court is dated 23.12.2020, on the basis of the complaint which has been submitted by the petitioner on 03.12.2020 and the complaint which has been submitted by the daughter of respondent No.4 also on 03.12.2020. The endorsement of 23.12.2020 has been issued, post the filing of the above writ petition on 07.12.2020. Thereby, categorically indicating that the said document is a created document for the purpose of the present writ petition to try and absolve them from the responsibilities. 10. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner was in possession of the subject property. The respondents are not in possession and the police authorities have interfered in a matrimonial dispute between the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 parties to remove the petitioner, her belongings from the property and thereafter have issued an endorsement after 20 days that the dispute is civil in nature. If at all the police authorities ought to have after inspection and visit the property on 03.12.2020, issued such endorsement on the very same day. The said endorsement has been issued after the filing of the writ petition. Which clearly denotes malafide on the part of the jurisdictional police concerned. 11. In that view of the matter, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER (i) writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to put back the petitioner in possession of the house property bearing No.EWS 61, II phase, III stage, Dattagalli, Mysore within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct an enquiry into the functioning of respondent No.3 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15630 WP No. 14559 of 2020 in the present matter by recording necessary evidence and submit a report thereof within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for compensation otherwise, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. (v) The Commissioner is also directed to instruct the concerned officers to act in accordance with law and not to involve themselves in the matrimonial affairs, so as to cause further rift among the family members. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4