Disposed

Ummachutti v. Jinesh

Kerala HC13 Jul 2017Con.Case(C)/2109/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the Division Bench directed the Circle Inspector of Police to restore peaceful possession of the house to the petitioner-appellant and ensure her safety from her daughter-in-law, noting conflicting affidavits regarding current occupancy.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Circle Inspector of Police to ensure the petitioner is restored to peaceful possession of the house and provided police protection.

Ummachutti Vs Jinesh — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2017/22ND ASHADHA, 1939 Con.Case(C).No. 2109 of 2016 (S) IN WP(C).27437/2016 ------------------------------------------------------

¶5

JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27437/2016 DATED 31.8.2016

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

UMMACHUTTI, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O MUHAMMED, THADATHIL HOUSE, MURICKAL ROAD, KARINKALATHANAI, ULLANAM P.O, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT 1 & 2:

¶10

1. JINESH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2. MANAKADA ALAVI,

¶12

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

Addl. 3. THAZHE KALLIANGATT FATHIMA

¶14

D/O MHAMMEDALI, THADATHIL HOUSE, ULLANAM AMSOM DESOM, MURICKAL ROAD, KARINKALLATHANI, P.O.ULLANAM-676103, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. [Addl. R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.2.2017 IN I.A. NO.120/17]

¶15

R1 & 2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDAKUMR BABU R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SAIDALAVI R3 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sou.

¶18

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ &

¶19

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

¶20

Cont. Case. No. 2109 of 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2017

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Navaniti Prasad Singh, CJ

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

¶24

The petitioner is the mother-in-law. The third respondent is the daughter-in-law. It appears that son of the petitioner namely, Hamza had a marriage from which he has two children. He then divorced the first wife. He then married the third respondent. He now has three children. According to the third respondent, they were residing in the house of the petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the third respondent. Her husband, ie., son of the petitioner then married another lady ie., the third respondent and moved out and one child was also born. After this third marriage, it seems the relationship between all the three parties became extremely sour.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent filed an application before the Magistrate under the provisions of

¶26

COC. .2109/16 2

¶27

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which the Magistrate inter alia ordered that the petitioner would not disturb the possession of the third respondent from their shared household until further orders. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed original petition before this Court, in which this part of the order of the Magistrate was set aside.

¶28

It appears that as this petitioner has been ousted from the house and has been tormented by her daughter-in-law, a writ petition seeking police protection and consequentially entry in the house was filed by this petitioner, in which the Division Bench passed the order noticing that the third respondent had not obeyed the orders of the Court. It directed the State to provide police help to restore the possession of the mother-in-law and maintain peaceful possession of mother-inlaw by grant of police protection. By this contempt application, the mother-in-law has prayed that her daughter-in-law is in continuous violation of the orders of this Court. She is neither vacating the house nor is permitting the mother-in-law to come back to the house peacefully.

¶29

Having heard the parties, we are of the view that there is no orders of any Court directing the daughter-in-law to vacate the house. To say that she has no legal interest in the

¶30

COC. .2109/16 3

¶31

house is one thing. But to order her eviction is another. There is no order to our understanding directing that the daughter-inlaw must be evicted. But there is no dispute that there is a specific order to restore the possession of the mother-in-law and there is also a direction to the police to ensure proper protection for the mother-in-law. By this contempt application, what is urged is that the police is neither evicting the daughterin-law nor ensuring restoration of possession to mother-in-law nor providing any protection. There is an affidavit by the police which create more controversy than attempts to solve. It states that the daughter-in-law is not residing in the house. It states that the mother-in-law is peacefully residing in the house. Both these statements are challenged by the motherin-law. Both these statements we find prima facie are incorrect in as much as the daughter-in-law asserts that she is in the house contradicting the police and the mother-in-law states that she is out of the house and that is why she has been perusing this Court to get her possession back. Thus contradicting the police. In this situation, this Court would observe that so far as the possession of daughter-in-law is concerned, no court has held or directed that she has to be ousted. What the courts have discussed is in view of the

¶32

COC. .2109/16

¶33

¶34

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.R. Batra and another v. Taruna Batra [2007 (3) SCC 169] ., the daughter-in-law could not claim that the house of the motherin-law is a shared household. We find in the instant case that, no direction has been given for eviction of the daughter-in-law or that she should vacate the premises. Thus, if the mother has any problem with that situation, it would be for her to see that she obtains the order from the Court of competent jurisdiction for eviction of her daughter-in-law from her house. But so far as the second aspect is concerned, though the police says that the mother-in-law is in possession, mother-in-law denies, rather she says that each time she tried to get back to the house, she has been physically assaulted and abused by the daughter-in-law and police stood as a mere spectator.

¶35

Be that as it may, whatever may be the situation, we would direct the second respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Tanur, Malappuram District to ensure that the mother-in-law ie., the petitioner, Ummachutti is put back in possession of her house peacefully, without resistance in any manner by the third respondent daughter-in-law. He would also ensure that necessary police protection is made available to the petitioner so that the daughter-in-law may not mistreat the petitioner in

¶36

COC. .2109/16 5

¶37

any manner for admittedly, she is aged and infirm. The Circle Inspector would comply with our orders within one week of production of a copy of this order before him. Any resistance made by the third respondent, the daughter-in-law should be handled seriously and with all force by the police and the matter be reported to this Court, if occasion so arises.

¶38

With this observation and direction this contempt application stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Judge

¶43

sou.15/7.

¶44

// True copy //

Ummachutti v. Jinesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummachutti v. Jinesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju.R Vs the Authorized Officer

Mohan Kumar M.G Vs the State Bank of Travancore

The Principal Vs Akhil Vijayan

B.Sukumar Vs Dr.T.N.Prakash

M/S.Sharon Spices Vs the Chief Manager

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Manoj S. Viswam