Allowed

Dr.Mohammed Shiros v. Dr.Aysha Nazlin

Kerala HC31 Jan 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision petition, the High Court set aside a Sessions Court order permitting the wife's parents to stay in the shared household. The petitioners are residents. While keeping that specific part in abeyance, the court directed the lower court to dispose of the main proceedings within three months and retain an interim eviction protection order. The wife's lawyers were told they are

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Sessions Court granting permission to the wife's parents to stay is set aside; the lower court to dispose of main proceedings in 3 months; interim eviction protection order r

Dr.Mohammed Shiros Vs Dr.Aysha Nazlin — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2012/11TH MAGHA,1933

¶5

CRRP.No. 195 of 2012 (D)

¶6

CM.P.NO. 2055/2011 IN MC.92/2011 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 / RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 / RESPONDENTS :

¶8

1. DR.MOHAMMED SHIROS,

¶9

AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBAKKER BABU, `LALITHAM', PIPE LINE ROAD, THOPPIL, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

2. ABOOBAKKER BABU, LALITHAM, PIPELINE ROAD, THOPPIL, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

3. SULEKSHA, W/O.ABOOBAKKER BABU, LALITHAM, PIPELINE ROAD, THOPPIL, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

4. SHIFA,

¶13

D/O.ABOOBAKKER BABU, LALITHAM, PIPELINE ROAD, THOPPIL, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶15

RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER & 5^th RESPONDENT / PETITIONER & 5^th RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT & STATE : -

¶16

1. DR.AYSHA NAZLIN, D/O.A.M.M.SHAFFI, AGED 25 YEARS, LALITHAM, PIPELINE ROAD, THOPPIL, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶18

R1 BY SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T.R. RAJESH

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

CRRP.No. 195 of 2012 (D)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A1 :	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN M.C. NO. 92/11 FILED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM COURT -1, ALUVA.
ANNEXURE A2 :	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.11.2011 CMP NO. 2044/11 IN ANNEXURE -A1 COMPLAINT.
ANNEXURE A3 :	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ANNEXURE -A1 COMPLAINT.
ANNEXURE A4 :	COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS CMP NO. 2055/11 IN ANNEXURE - A1.
ANNEXURE A5 :	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2011 IN CMP NO. 2055/11 IN ANNEXURE -A1 COMPLAINT.
ANNEXURE A6 :	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.12.2011 IN CMP NO. 2044/11 IN ANNEXURE A1 COMPLAINT.
ANNEXURE A7 :	COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 02.01.2012 IN Crl.M.P NO. 3716/2011 IN Crl. APPEAL NO. 735/2011.
RESPONDENTS' AN	NEXURES: NIL.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶28

Crl. R.P. NO : 195 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2012

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Under challenge is the order dated 02.01.2012 in Crl.M.P. No. 3716/2011 in Crl. Appeal No. 735/2011 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

¶32

Petitioner is the complainant in M.C. No. 92/11

¶33

which is filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as D.V. Act). She moved M.P. 2044/2011 under Section 23 of the Act, seeking an interim order and that was granted directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the shared household and also for other reliefs. The order was passed by the Trial Court, which was taken in appeal by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The Sessions Court, Ernakulam, passed the impugned order allowing the application.

¶34

The complaint of the revision petitioner is that,

¶35

while he is providing accommodation to his wife, he has no

¶36

Crl. R.P. NO : 195 of 2012

¶37

¶38

obligation to provide accommodation to parents or relatives of his wife, under no circumstances also. At the time of admission of

¶39

this revision petition, this court passed the following order.

¶40

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners. Impugned Annexure A7 order so far as it relates to the permission granted to the parents of the first respondent / wife to stay in the shared home shall be kept in abeyance till 27.01.2012. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of first respondent staying in the shared house mentioned in the order. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall serve notice along with a copy of the petition to the counsel appearing for the respondents before the Sessions Court.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

¶42

the respondents are not staying in the house in question. That submission is recorded.

¶43

The revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to dispose of the main proceedings within three months from today and the interim order passed by the court referred to above shall remain in force till then.

¶44

P. BHAVADASAN JUDGE.

¶45

DMR /-

Dr.Mohammed Shiros v. Dr.Aysha Nazlin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Mohammed Shiros v. Dr.Aysha Nazlin

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

Nazar Vs Jisa

F.Eugin Fernandaz Vs O.B.Biju

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Jose Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Sooja Khan Vs State of Kerala

Mary Ann Thomas Vs M/S. Uti Bank