Dismissed

Nabeesa Beevi v. Shanifa @ Shania and Another

Kerala HC21 Oct 2009WP(C)/16227/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order refusing an injunction to a mother-in-law seeking residence in a building. The Court upheld the Family Court decision but directed expedited disposal of pending connected matters.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Family Court was directed to dispose of O.P. No.93/09 and two connected matters within six months.

Nabeesa Beevi Vs Shanifa @ Shania and Another — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 16227 of 2009(R) -------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/05/2009 IN OP(HMA)93 2009 IN IA.527/2009 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

NABEESA BEEVI, CHANTHAVILA VEEDU, VENJARAMOODU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

SHANIFA @ SHANIA, CHANTHAVILA VEEDU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

SALIM, CHANTHAVILA VEEDU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADV. SMT.K.KUSUMAM FOR R1 SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER FOR R2 SRI.M.ZIYAD FOR R2

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.16227 of 2009-R

¶17

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2009

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Basant,J.

¶20

This writ petition arises from an interim order passed in O.P.No.93/09 by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That O.P. is filed by the 1^st respondent herein against her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The said O.P. is for an injunction against ousting the wife from the matrimonial home. An interim injunction has been granted. The wife has secured an order for police protection to reside in that house. The learned Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005 has also granted an order in favour of the wife, it is conceded.

¶21

Those orders are remaining in force. Admittedly, the wife is residing in the house which she describes to be her matrimonial home. She has a contention that the residential

¶22

W.P.(C) No.16227 of 2009-R

¶23

-: 2 :-

¶24

building in that house is constructed using the sale proceeds of gold ornaments and a property belonging to her.

¶25

During the pendency of the said O.P., the mother-in-law - the 2^nd respondent in the O.P. (the petitioner herein) filed an application for interim injunction to enable her to reside in the petition schedule building along with her husband. She prayed that the petitioner in the O.P. (the wife) may be excluded from the building also. According to her, the house belonged to her originally. She transferred the same to her son i.e., the husband of the original petitioner. The husband of the original petitioner transferred the same to his brother-in-law. It is the case of the mother-in-law that she has in such transfers reserved for herself a right to reside in the petition schedule building.

¶26

The application of the mother-in-law i.e., the petitioner herein was resisted. The court below by the impugned order dismissed the claim for injunction staked by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶27

We have heard both counsel. Indications galore to suggest that the original petitioner/wife is residing in the house

¶28

W.P.(C) No.16227 of 2009-R

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

along with her children. Though the petitioner herein also claims to reside in the very same house, satisfactory indications to show that she is continuing such residence are not readily available. We do not intend to express any authentic final opinion on that disputed question. Suffice it to say that we do not find any compelling reasons that can persuade us to interfere with the impugned order invoking our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. However, we are satisfied that in the interests of justice appropriate directions deserve to be issued.

¶31

In the result:

¶32

(a) This writ petition is dismissed.

¶33

(b) We, however, direct the Family Court, Trivandrum, to dispose of O.P.No.93/09 along with two other connected matters which are also said to be pending before the Family Court as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before the Family Court.

¶34

Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner for immediate production before the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.16227 of 2009-R

¶36

-: 4 :-

¶37

Family Court. The Registry shall also forthwith communicate a copy of this judgment to the Family Court.

¶38

Sd/R. BASANT (Judge)

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

M.C. HARI RANI (Judge)

Nan/

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

W.P.(C) No.16227 of 2009-R

¶45

-: 5 :-

Nabeesa Beevi v. Shanifa @ Shania and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabeesa Beevi v. Shanifa @ Shania and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Saithalavi Haji Vs Sulaikha

Anoop Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rajamma Vs Superintendent of Police

Abdul Jaseem & Others Vs Samama

Sindhu K. Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala