Disposed

Gigi Mathew v. the District Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC27 Jul 2010WP(C)/8310/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing respondents to protect her from 4th respondent and ensure prior injunction is obeyed. Court directed police to provide adequate protection if 4th respondent acts against petitioner, ensuring injunction is obeyed.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents 3 and 4 to provide adequate protection against the 4th respondent to ensure the existing injunction is obeyed.

Gigi Mathew Vs the District Superintendent of Police — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 8310 of 2010(K)

PETITIONER:

GIGI MATHEW, W/O.K.M.MATHEW, KANDEREPPALLIYILYA KALAVICKAL HOUSE, MEMURY, MANJOOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION.

¶16

K.M.MATHEW @ DAI, KANDARAPPALLIYIL

¶17

HOUSE, KANJIRATHANAM, KOTTAYAM-686 603.

¶18

ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R4

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 8310 of 2010(K)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MAT.APPEAL NO.291 / 2009 OF HIGH COURT.

¶24

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.9.3.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶26

// TRUE COPY//

¶27

K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶28

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 8310 of 2010 K

¶29

- - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Joseph, J.

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

¶33

“issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to give sufficient and adequate protection to the petitioner and her children against the illegal activities of the 4^th respondent and his allies from forcibly evicting the petitioner and her children from the house, bearing No.367 in Ward 16 of Manjoor Panchayat situated in 66.051 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.241/5, 110/7A and 111/8 of Manjoor Village or causing any harm to the person and property of the petitioner and her children.”

¶34

W.P.(C).No. 8310 of 2010

¶35

Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 4^th respondent. Three children were born in their wedlock. The relationship between them became strained. There is reference to a Settlement Deed, as per which the 4^th respondent had conveyed the above said property and the building situated therein to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is in absolute possession of the property. As per order in O.P. 424 of 2005, the Family Court declared that the petitioner is the owner of the said property and the residential building therein. In appeal, the matter was remanded back by Ext.P1 judgment, as per which this Court had directed that the injunction which was obtained by the petitioner restraining the 4^th respondent and another from trespassing into the petition schedule property or alienating the property will continue till the disposal of the case by the Family Court.

¶36

The petitioner has also filed a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence

¶37

W.P.(C).No. 8310 of 2010

¶38

Act and the same is pending. It is stated that on 8.3.2010 the 4^th respondent came to the house of the petitioner and threatened her and her younger female child and asked them to vacate the house. She filed Ext.P2 complaint before the second respondent.

¶39

We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

¶40

for the 4^th respondent, Shri.M.P. Ashok Kumar, as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submits that the allegations raised against the 4^th respondent are not correct. He would submit that the 4^th respondent has no intention to enter into the house of the petitioner or to threaten her or their children till the matter is finally settled either through mediation or through adjudication.

¶42

We record the said submission and direct that in case the 4^th respondent does any act against the petitioner, which is brought to the notice of respondents 3 and 4, respondents 3 and 4 will provide

¶43

W.P.(C).No. 8310 of 2010

¶44

¶45

adequate protection to see that the injunction, which has been granted as per Ext.P1, is obeyed.

¶46

(K. M. JOSEPH)

¶47

Judge

¶48

(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶49

Gigi Mathew v. the District Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gigi Mathew v. the District Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakaran Vs Parameswaran

Dhakshayani v Vs the State of Kerala

James Philip Vs the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs

Wireless Tt Info Services Ltd. Vs the Si of Police, Valapattanam Police

Prabhavathy Vs Director General of Police

Selvaraj @ Sasi Vs Dy.Superintendent of Police