ABDULLA.P.U. Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) The petitioner and the third respondent were married as per customary religious rites on 30.3.1997 and two children were born in the wedlock. On account of serious matrimonial disputes, according to the petitioner, he had dissolved his marriage with the third respondent as per customary rites in the year 2018. Matrimonial disputes between the parties are pending before the Family Court. Alleging that the petitioner had committed domestic violence against the third respondent, the third respondent had filed M.C.No.99/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva against the petitioner. The third respondent and the child had also filed Crl.M.P.No.3648/2018 in M.C.No.99/2018 under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 seeking protection order, maintenance, residence order or alternative accommodation and order restraining the petitioner from alienating the shared household. The main allegation in Crl.M.P.No.3648/2018 in M.C.No.99/2018 is that the petitioner forcibly evicted the third respondent from the shared household at Aluva on 11.2.2018. On a consideration of the rival contentions between the parties, the learned Magistrate passed Ext.P3 interim order granting the following reliefs :-

(3.) On receipt of Ext.P3 order by the second respondent, it is alleged that the second respondent made an attempt to induct third respondent into the building of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the second respondent has illegally interfered with the leasehold arrangements between the petitioner and his tenant by entering into the tenanted premises and compelled the tenant to vacate the premises forthwith to accommodate the third respondent also in the house. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is serious supervisory lapse on the first respondent in permitting the second respondent to interfere with the rights of the petitioner over his property since Ext.P3 order has been communicated to the first respondent for further action. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent has not taken any action against the second respondent for disobeying the direction contained in Ext.P3.