LAWS(KER)-2017-2-226

B SURESH Vs. AHALYA, D/O MURALEEDHARAN

Decided On February 13, 2017
B SURESH Appellant
V/S
Ahalya, D/O Muraleedharan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in M.C. No.97 of 2016 pending on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated by the respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the wife and minor child of the son of the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(2.) The 3rd respondent, who is the son of the petitioner herein had married the respondent No 1 on 27.11.2005. The 2nd respondent was born in the wedlock. The petitioner is the absolute owner of 3.50 Ares of property and a residential building therein where he is residing with his family. It is specifically contended that the marital relationship between the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent fell into rough weather. For the past several years, the respondents 1 to 3 were residing separately.

(3.) While so, in the year 2014 , M.C. No.97 of 2016 was preferred by respondents 1 and 2 against the petitioner, and respondents 3 and 4 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) praying for a residence order claiming that she was driven away by the 4th respondent. Maintenance was also sought from the 3rd respondent. In the petition, it was stated that the respondents 1 and 2 were staying in a house at Mulluvila, Kollam. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.3.2016 restrained the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 from committing any type of harassment against respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent was directed to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- each per month to respondents 1 and 2. However, the learned Magistrate had refused to grant residence order to respondents 1 and 2. However, on 28.7.2016, respondents 1 and 2 along with their henchmen and lawyer are alleged to have criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner claiming that she had obtained residence order from the learned Magistrate. They have no right to enter the premises or to reside there as it was not a shared household according to the petitioner .