ABDUL JALEEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to be issued to respondents 2, 3 and 4, who are the concerned police officials in charge of the area where his residential house is situated, to take sufficient action against respondents 5 to 8, who the petitioner claims have now forcibly taken possession of his residential house.

(2.) The petitioner says that the 7th respondent is his daughter- in-law who was married to his son on 20.07.2015. He asserts that their matrimonial union, however, has now hit rough weather and that the 7th respondent has approached the First Class Magistrate's Court, Kakkanad, by filing a Maintenance Case, numbered as M.C. No. 49 of 2018, under the provisions of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. As per the petitioner, the application filed by the 7th respondent before the Magistrate's Court, seeking interim orders of residence, has been found against her and he has produced on record Ext.P7 order from the said Court, wherein the finding is that since the property, where the 7 th respondent's husband and she had resided, belong to the petitioner exclusively, it cannot be treated as a shared household, going by the judgment of this Court in Hashir A.R. and Ors. Vs. Shima and Ors. [2015 (2) KLT 919]. The petitioner submits that since the 7th respondent has thus not been able to obtain orders from the Magistrate's Court, she cannot be now allowed to continue residence in his house and he complains that it is not merely 7th respondent who is now forcibly residing there, but also her entire family, namely, respondents 5, 6 and 8, thus forcing him and his family to take refuge in a relative's house situated nearby. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the concerned police officials be directed to remove respondents 5 to 8 from his house so as to create a conducive atmosphere for his family to return.

(3.) We notice that when this matter was considered by this Court on 18.05.2018, an interim order was issued, whereby the police were directed to ensure peaceful occupation of the house by the petitioner and his family and for such purpose, to evict the respondents 5, 6 and 8 from it, ensuring further that they do not enter to the house to reside along with the 7 th respondent. Sri. T. B. Hood, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to this order only the 7th respondent and her little child are now residing in the house but he says that as long as she continues to reside there, the petitioner and his family do not dare to live there because they fear that she might implicate them, one way or the other, by making baseless allegations.