ABDUL RAZAK Vs. BUSHARA @ KIZHAKKAYIL BUSHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the respondent in MC No.98/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thamarassery. The first respondent herein(petitioner in MC) sought various reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act. Admittedly, the matrimonial relationship and the birth of the children are not in dispute. It is also admitted that, the parties are now maintaining very strained relationship. Four children were born in the matrimonial relationship among which the youngest child is a minor. It is also seen that, the petitioner herein is working abroad.

(2.) By Ext.P2 order, certain interim reliefs were granted by the learned Magistrate during the pendency of the proceedings. After trial, Ext.P1 final order was passed. Even though several contentions were advanced by both sides, the main and essential contention, for the purpose of this original petition, relates to the restraint order against the alienation of the disputed house No.3/37A(old) XIX/1774(new) by name Karat house, which admittedly is a rather new building. It seems that, there is no dispute that the first respondent with children are staying in that house. It is also not disputed seriously that, the petitioner who is working abroad also used to reside in that house. The court below, while passing Ext.P1 order, directed to pay monthly maintenance to the first respondent herein as well as to the minor child. There was an order by which the petitioner herein was restrained from alienating the shared household referred to above. It seems that, there cannot be any serious dispute regarding that direction.

(3.) The grievance of the wife seems to be that, till Ext.P1 order was passed, there was an interim order protecting her from being forcefully thrown out. That was direction No. 2 of Ext.P2. There was a further direction in Ext.P2, permitting her to collect the rent at the rate of Rs.16, 510/- from the tenants.