A.ABDUL RAHIMAN Vs. STATE POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a business man, who was an expatriate, returned recently, and presently engaged as timber merchant and contractor. He has purchased properties, including a saw mill and is paying tax as per Exts.P1 and P2. He has also obtained license for the saw mill as evidenced from Ext.P3. Exts.P4 and P5 are the licenses obtained from the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur and Ext.P6 is the CST registration of the saw mill. The 6th respondent is his legally wedded wife, and three children are also born in that wedlock. Two female children are married and the son is studying. The petitioner also owns a Toyota Fortuner vehicle as evidenced by Ext.P7 RC Book. He is having accounts in several banks. 6th respondent was working as Nurse in Saudi Arabia. However, his relationship with 6th respondent got strained, and she with the help of her henchmen forcefully took possession of the saw mill and vehicle. The petitioner filed O.P.No.985/2017 before the Family Court, Kottarakkara and obtained an order to maintain status quo as per Ext.P8. The 6th respondent also filed another petition before the same Family Court as O.P.N.998/2017 and she too obtained an order to maintain status quo as per Ext.P9. The 6th respondent has also filed a petition before the JFMC-III, Punalur under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act. An interim order as per Ext.P10, was obtained against the petitioner restraining him from harassing the 6th respondent mentally and physically and also not to interfere with her conducting the saw mill. That order was challenged before the Sessions Court, Kollam and as per Ext.P11 order a direction was given to the Magistrate to dispose of the petition within 30 days. The petitioner filed complaints before the Police, as Exts.P12, P14 and P17 . In order to harass the petitioner further, the 6th respondent filed complaints before the Pathanapuram Police Station against him and he obtained anticipatory bail from Sessions Court, Kollam as per Ext.P13. The Magistrate passed an order restraining the petitioner from harassing the 6th respondent as per Ext.P15 order. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court and obtained stay order as per Ext.P16. Ext.P18 is the judgment modifying Ext.P15 order of the Magistrate Court. Since the petitioner was unable to operate his bank accounts, he could not supply timber and reeds to various corporations with whom, the petitioner had entered into contracts. The petitioner therefore seeks remedy from this court by way of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 7 to 12 to permit the petitioner to operate his bank accounts without any hindrance from respondents 6 to 12. And further declaring that respondents 1 to 5 have no right to harass the petitioner in any manner by obstructing the peaceful conduct of the saw mill and to reside in his house, which belongs to him exclusively. Declaration is also sought that respondents 7 to 12 have no right or jurisdiction to prevent the petitioner from operating the bank accounts standing in his name.

(2.) The Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 5 and Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 8 to 12. The 6th respondent appeared through Counsel and filed a counter- affidavit contradicting the allegations made in the petition.

(3.) The main contention of the 6th respondent is that she was employed abroad and the vehicle as well as the property were purchased with her funds. Ext.R6(a) is the original registration particulars of the vehicle. It is contended that the petitioner had forged her signature and got the vehicle transferred in his name, regarding which, an FIR has been filed as Ext.R6(b). Dispute is pending before the Family Court regarding the ownership of the properties, including the saw mill. It is contended that the saw mill is being conducted by the 6th respondent and not by the petitioner.