WP(C) No. 30753 of 2012 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner toexecute the petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a WP(C).NO.30753/12 T3case where, apparently the petitioner has obtained an ex partedecree for injunction. Petitioner has also filed a petition seeking execution of the decree. In such circumstances, we feel that it may not…
Judgment
WP(C)NO.30753/2012APPENDIXPETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:P1COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN O.P.NO.1475/2006 DATED 22/09/2007P2COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.P.NO.1475/2006 DATED 2/5/2007P3COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.1475/2006 DATED 24/09/2007P4COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.257/2007 DATED 19/10/2007P5COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN MAT APPEAL NO.671/2007 AND 672/2007 DATED 3/07/2009P6COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.1899/2009 AND IA.1900/2009 DATED 11/06/2010P7COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.761/2012 DATED 9/6/2012P8COPY OF THE PETITION IN E.P.34/2012 DATED 23/6/2012P9COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN E.P.34/2012 DATED 14/11/2012P10COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/11/2012RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL/TRUE COPY/P.S.TO.JUDGEsts K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.30753 OF 2012 T-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20th December, 2012 JUDGMENTK.M. Joseph, J.Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:
Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide effective and adequate police protection to the petitioner to reside in the petition schedule property inO.P.1475/2007 without being obstructed by the 3rdrespondent.
Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner was the wife of the third respondent. She is seeking police protection for residing in the house situated in the petition schedule property in O.P.1475/2006 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad against the threat and obstruction caused WP(C).NO.30753/12 T2by the third respondent. Third respondent is an alcoholic person who after consuming liquor, used to torture the petitioner, both physically and mentally. His torture came to such an extent that it became practically impossible to live with him. In such circumstances, petitioner filed O.P.257/2007 seeking divorce andO.P.1475/2006 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the third respondent from forcibly evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule property. In the above case, the third respondent was set ex parte and the petition was allowed restraining the third respondent from evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule property. It is stated that the threat, intimidation and physical attack on the petitioner is continuing and the petitioner is living under serious threat to her life. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the second respondent seeking police protection to reside in the petition schedule property. But, due to the influence of the third respondent, the second respondent is not taking any action on the complaint and hence the petitioner is before us.
Operative part
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a WP(C).NO.30753/12 T3case where, apparently the petitioner has obtained an ex partedecree for injunction. Petitioner has also filed a petition seeking execution of the decree. In such circumstances, we feel that it may not be appropriate for us to entertain this Writ Petition seeking police protection for residing which apparently is a right which isin tune with the ex parte decree for injunction which is sought tobe executed. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to execute the petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of. We observe that the Family Court will proceed with the execution petition without any undue delay. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGESd/= K. HARILAL, JUDGEkbk.//True Copy//PS to Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.