KOTTAYIL SUSHEELA Vs. KOTTAYIL SUMITRA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.Sherry.J.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this original petition, notice to the respondents will stand dispensed with.

(3.) On a reading of the impugned Ext. P6 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Thalassery, on I.A.No.2119 of 2016 in O.S.No.330 of 2016, this Court had expressed a provisional view that the said order cannot be said to be vitiated by gross illegality or manifest perversity, more so particularly because the learned Munsiff has clearly found in the last paragraph on page 7 of the impugned order that the petitioner's life interest in the property cannot be thrown out only on due to the fact that the old house was collapsed and further that the respondents therein are directed to take care of the petitioner to rest of her life etc. Sri. Sherry. J. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now without any residence and she is literally living on the street, in a tent put up at the initiative of the good samaritans in the locality, as shown in Ext.P1 and that she is financially impecunious to prolong the litigation further. Further, counsel for the petitioner would submit that liberty may be given to the petitioner to file an appropriate interlocutory application before the trial court to effectuate interim relief and ensure protection to the petitioner based on the clear findings in Ext.P6 that her life interest cannot be thrown out merely on the fact that the old house is collapsed and that the respondents are directed to take care of the petitioner to rest of her life etc. and that petitioner would seek appropriate interim reliefs by filing I.A. to ensure that necessary interim maintenance is granted by the respondents in order to effectuate the above said clear cut findings in the last paragraph on page 7 of Ext.P6 and that petitioner should also seek directions to ensure that the defendants provide a separate room with attached bathroom and with independent access to the outside in the new house sought to be constructed by the defendants, to enable the petitioner to have residential facilities till her life time. Further, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court may direct the expeditious completion of the trial in the above original suit. Accordingly, it is ordered that liberty is given to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for claiming interim maintenance and right of residence, etc. as against the respondents herein, if such application is justified. In the light of the above said findings made by the trial court in the last paragraph on page 7 of Ext.P6 order and if such an application is filed, the trial court will ensure that both sides are heard and orders are passed, disposing of that I.A. in accordance with law without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 weeks from the date of submission of such I.A. The trial court will also take due note of the contention made by the petitioner that the life of a senior citizen like the petitioner, is not a chattel and that the Civil Court is constitutionally bound to protect and guarantee the right to dignified life of a senior citizen like the petitioner etc.