Special Leave Petition alleging failure of Respondent Police to execute maintenance warrant to arrest petitioner's former husband. Court finds no agency for the petitioners allegations.
Petitioner given liberty to point out whereabouts of second respondent if present; First Respondent to permit accompanying.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP (FC).No. 3874 of 2012 (R) ---------------------------OP.754/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
PULIKKAPARAMBIL RAJULA,, AGED 23 YEARS D/O MUHAMMED BAVA, PULIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE KERALA DESPURAM, KERALA DESPURAM DESOM, TANALUR AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.N.SURESH
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-112012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(F.C.) 3874/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS.:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 28.3.2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM IN O.P.NOS.754/2007, 755/2007 AND M.C.NO.811/2007.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.74/2010 IN O.P.755/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.73/2010 IN O.P.754/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CMP(EX)1164/2010 IN M.C.811/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION CMP(EX) 639/2012 IN M.C.811/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
O.P.(F.C.) No.3874 of 2012
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2012
Judgment
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is instituted by the petitioner alleging that the 1st respondent, the S.I. of Police is not keen on executing the warrant given to him
by the Family Court for arresting the 2nd respondent, the petitioner's former husband, in execution of a claim for maintenance passed in favour of the petitioner by the family court. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, we on 17.11.2012 passed the following order:
“No admitted. Sri.N.Suresh, the learned Govt.
Pleader takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. Sri.N.Suresh will ensure that the 1st respondent files a statement before this court within ten days from today answering the allegations in the Original Petition against him and explaining the difficulty experienced by him in the matter of arresting the
O.P.(F.C.) 3874/12
2
second respondent.”
Accordingly, the 1st respondent has filed a detailed statement. It is stated therein that in spite of earnest efforts taken by the first respondent to trace out the warrantee, the warrantee could not be traced out. It is seen that the warrantee's house as well as the warrantee's new wife's house elsewhere were searched. It is also stated in paragraph 5 as follows:
“Request has already submitted before the
District Police Chief, Malappuram to obtain the mobile phone call details of his new wife's phone (954431702) to locate the 2nd respondent on getting the same, whereabouts of the warrantee could be traced out and then he could be arrested, after obtaining the presidency passport to travel to Tamilnadu. If his hideout is there. In the event of non-accomplishment of the venture steps would be taken including proclamation and attachment of the
property of the warrantee, if the law may allow and order from court accordingly.”
We are convinced that the first respondent is not guilty of any
O.P.(F.C.) 3874/12
3
wilful dereliction of duty in the matter of executing the warrant. The petitioner or any of her representatives are given liberty of pointing out the whereabouts of the 2nd respondent if her case that the 2nd respondent is very much present in the locality is correct. The first respondent should permit the petitioner or her authorised representative to accompany the police officers who are going to execute the warrant against the petitioner.
The Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
srd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's allegation of wilful dereliction of duty by the Respondent Police in executing the Family Court warrant to arrest the second respondent is proved.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pulikkaparambil Rajula
Sub Inspector of Police, Tirurangadi Police Station
Mulleladakkal Mohammed Ali
Pius C Kuriakose
Babu Mathew P Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
