Partly allowed

Highles Miranda v. Philomina

Kerala HC12 Oct 2020Con.Case(C)/1399/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these joint contempt cases, the Court enforced a Maintenance Tribunal order granting a senior citizen father exclusive residential access to his owned house. The Court directed the grown-up daughter, son-in-law, and mother-in-law to vacate the property, allowing the father and his wife to remain in two bedrooms, while directions were issued to the police to ensure compliance.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner in C.C. No.1399/2020 (Highles Miranda) was granted relief by directing the respondent women and others to vacate the house except the petitioner and his wife, with police protection. Th

Highles Miranda Vs Philomina — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 20TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Con.Case(C).No.1399 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 12850/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.12850/2020(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER :

¶8

HIGHLES MIRANDA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.HENRY MIRANDA, VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.1/163, CHRISTURAJA UNIT, NEAR PALLITHURA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 :

¶11

1 PHILOMINA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.HIGHLES MIRANDA, RESIDING AT 'SONA COTTAGE', T.C.NO.1/1326, (OLD T.C.11/601), ST. JUDE LANE, PALLITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.

¶12

2 SONA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.PHILOMINA, RESIDING AT 'SONA COTTAGE', T.C.NO.1/1326, (OLD T.C.11/601), ST. JUDE LANE, PALLITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.

¶13

3 SEBASTIAN ALPHONSE, AGED 35 YEARS, H/O.SONA, RESIDING AT 'SONA COTTAGE', T.C.NO.1/1326, (OLD T.C.11/601), ST. JUDE LANE, PALLITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.

¶14

4 JUSNA MERSIER, AGED 83 YEARS, M/O.PHILOMINA, RESIDING AT 'SONA COTTAGE', T.C.NO.1/1326, (OLD T.C.11/601), ST. JUDE LANE, PALLITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.

¶15

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶16

1521 OF 2020 2 5 JAMES MERSIER, AGED 56 YEARS B/O.PHILOMINA, RESIDING AT 'SONA COTTAGE', T.C.NO.1/1326, (OLD T.C.11/601), ST. JUDE LANE, PALLITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586.

¶17

R1-R5 BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH SRI.B.BIPIN

¶18

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2020 ALONG WITH CON.CASE(C).NO.1521 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶20

1521 OF 2020 3

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶24

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 20TH ASWINA, 1942

¶25

Con.Case(C).No.1521 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 12850/2020

¶26

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.12850/2020(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶27

PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

¶28

PHILOMINA, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O.JUSANA MERCIAR, SONA COTTAGE, PALLITHURA, T.C.NO.01/163, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE WRIT PETITION IS SONA COTTAGE, T.C.NO.1/1326,(OLD T.C.11/601), ST.JUDE LANE, PALLITHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 586)

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH

¶30

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER W.P.(C) :

¶31

HIGHLES MIRANDA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. HENRY MIRANDA, VELIKKAKATH VEEDU, T.C.1/163, CHRISTURAJA UNIT, NEAR PALLITHURA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 586.

¶32

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2020 ALONG WITH CON.CASE(C).NO.1399 OF 2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶34

1521 OF 2020 4

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

These Contempt Cases are preferred complaining of willful disobedience of judgment dated 12.8.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 12850 of 2020 on the files of this Court.

¶37

The petitioner in Cont. Case (C) No.1399 of 2020 is Sri.Highles Miranda whereas the petitioner in Cont. Case (C) No.1521 of 2020 is Smt. Philomina, who is none other than his wife. Sri.Highles had approached the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 with a prayer to restrain his wife, daughter, son-in-law and mother-in-law from causing any obstruction to his peaceful residence in the house owned by him.

¶38

The Maintenance Tribunal allowed the petition and Sri. Highles was permitted to reside in the home and the respondents in the petition

¶39

were ordered to refrain from causing any obstruction to his peaceful residence.

¶40

The order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal was challenged before this Court by Smt. Philomina and others. This Court by judgment

¶41

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶42

1521 OF 2020 5

¶43

dated 12.8.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 10290 of 2020 refused to interfere with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Though the judgment was challenged in appeal by preferring W.A.No.1175 of 2020, their Lordships of the Division Bench refused to interfere and confirmed the judgment of this Court.

¶44

Meanwhile, complaining that Smt.Philomina and others are causing interference to his peaceful residence, Sri. Highles approached this Court and filed W.P. (C).No. 12850 of 2020 seeking an order of police protection for his life and property and to enable him to get the benefits of the order granted by the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

¶45

This Court by judgment dated 12.08.2020 had disposed of the

¶46

matter granting police protection to the petitioner. In paragraph 9, 10 and 11 it was observed as follows:

¶47

“ 9. It is undisputed that 64 cents of property and the building bearing No. T.C.1/162 & 1/163 are owned by the petitioner. The respondents have produced Ext.P9 plaint in O.P.No.785/2020 filed by respondents 2 and 3 before the Family court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking return of money and gold. Even in the plaint, right of the petitioner in the above property is undisputed. I find that the Maintenance Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has passed an order holding that the petitioner is entitled to reside in the house bearing No.T.C.No.1/163 without

¶48

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶49

¶50

1521 OF 2020

¶51

disturbance from the party respondents.It is true that the 2nd respondent has also obtained orders from the learned Magistrate restraining the petitioner from transferring the property or from committing any acts of domestic violence. However all that is stated in the order is that the petitioner shall not commit any acts of domestic violence on the 2nd respondent nor shall he alienate the property. The petitioner has no objection in the 2nd respondent residing with him in House No 1/163.

¶52

In the report filed before this Court by the District Social Justice Officer, he has stated in unmistakable that in house No. 1/162, the 4th respondent was conducting some business and now the same has been vacated. The said building has no electric connection and cannot be used for the purpose of residence without carrying out some amount of repairs. It also appears that house No 1/163 has only two bedrooms. The petitioner has contended in his petition that the 5th respondent has her own house which fact is undisputed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Since House No. 1/163 has only two rooms and since the petitioner has every right to reside in the house built by him, the respondents 3 to 5 will not be justified in contending that they are entitled to stay in the house after keeping the petitioner out. Furthermore, the respondents 3 and 5 are spouses and they along with their children will have to provide space to the petitioner to stay in his own house and cannot keep him away, particularly in view of the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal in favor of the petitioner .

¶53

Having considered all the relevant facts, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to live peaceably in the house bearing No T.C. 1/ 163 as ordered by the Maintenance Tribunal without any obstruction from the respondents 2 to 6. In view of the order passed by the learned

¶54

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶55

1521 OF 2020 7

¶56

Magistrate and even otherwise, the 2nd respondent will also be entitled to stay in the house along with the petitioner, if she wishes so. The petitioner shall diligently comply with Exhibit P3 order passed by the learned Magistrate under the provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If any obstruction is caused by respondents 3 to 6 to the peaceful and continued residence of the petitioner, necessary protection shall be granted to the petitioner by the 1st respondent . ” (emphasis supplied)

¶57

Sri. Highles is before this Court with this Contempt Case complaining that the respondents have not permitted him to reside in his house as ordered by this Court. He was not permitted to occupy the bedroom and he has been permitted to occupy a corner of the main hall. Even for his basic needs, he needs to leave the house and is at the mercy of his relatives. He states that he was brutally manhandled by his wife, daughter and son-in-law and crime No. 765 of 2020 was registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 342, 427, 187 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC based on his complaint. He contends that he has no objection in his wife occupying the adjacent bedroom. But, according to him, as held by this Court, his daughter, son-in-law and mother-in-law have no right to stay in the house to the detriment of the residential rights of Sri. Highles.

¶58

Smt. Philomina on the other hand, who is the petitioner in Cont. Case (C) No. 1521 of 2020 states that while disposing of the matter,

¶59

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶60

1521 OF 2020 8

¶61

this Court had protected her interest as well and Sri. Highles was directed to diligently comply with the order passed by the learned Magistrate under

¶62

the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in a complaint filed by Smt. Philomina. It is stated that violating the order, Sri. Highles snapped some photographs of his wife applying balm on her body and based on her complaint, Crime No. 767 of 2020 has been registered under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 294(b) of the IPC. It is further stated that this Court had only permitted Sri. Highles to live in House No. T.C.1/163 but did not interdict her daughter, son-in-law and others from residing in the house.

¶63

In view of the rival submissions, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the Station House Officer, Thumba police station, who had occasion to visit the house. The report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Thumba police station was placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader. From the statement it appears that based on the complaint lodged by Sri. Highles Miranda, the officer had visited House No.1/163 and it was found that Sri. Highles Miranda was never permitted to enter the bedroom and he has been living in a corner of the hall. He was not permitted to use the toilets or use the kitchen. It is further stated that after the registration of the

¶64

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶65

1521 OF 2020 9

¶66

crime at his instance, he is residing elsewhere.

¶67

I have considered the submissions. It was on the strength of the order passed by the Tribunal Constituted under Act 56 of 2007 that Sri. Highles Miranda was granted unhindered access to live in the residential home No. 1/ 163 which stands in his name. The said order was challenged before this Court and the challenge was repelled by this Court. In that view of the matter, Smt. Philomena or any other person claiming under her cannot prevent Sri. Highles from occupying the house in the manner he chooses. Smt. Philomena will also be entitled to stay in the house as she has obtained an order in her favor under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. While disposing of the matter, this Court has specifically held that the grownup daughter, her husband and grandmother will not be entitled to stay in the house by keeping the petitioner out. Since there are only two bedrooms in the house, Sri. Highles and Smt. Philomena will be entitled to use the said rooms. The petitioner will have free access to the bathroom and kitchen. The daughter, son-in-law and others will have to vacate the house No. 1/163 and Sri. Highles will have unhindered access and use. It would be open to the daughter, son-in-law and others to stay in House No. 1/162 if there are no interdictory orders by any authority/court. The Station House Officer, Thumba police station shall

¶68

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶69

1521 OF 2020 10

¶70

strictly ensure that no obstruction is caused to the peaceful residence of Sri. Highles Miranda in House No. T.C.1/163.

¶71

It is apparent that Cont. Case (C) No. 1521 of 2020 has been filed by Smt. Philomina on an experimental basis to see that the directions of the Maintenance Tribunal as upheld by this Court are flouted. The contention of Sri. Liju V Stephen that the allegation that Sri. Highles had captured images of his wife applying balm on her body, that he had threatened and abused Smt. Philomina and her daughter, that he had videographed his wife and daughter with a view to upload the private videos to social media, etc. are made with a view to flout the orders of this Court cannot be brushed aside. The said crime was registered immediately after Crime No. 765 of 2020 was registered at the instance of Sri. Highles.

¶72

In that view of the matter, Cont. Case (C) No. 1399 of 2020 will stand disposed of with the above directions and Cont. Case (C) No.1521/ 2020 will stand dismissed.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶75

JUDGE

¶76

¶77

Con.Case(C).Nos.1399 of 2020 &

¶78

1521 OF 2020 11

¶79

APPENDIX OF CONT.CASE NO.1521 OF 2020

¶80

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶81

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2019 IN C.M.P. NO.579/2019 IN M.C. NO.21/2019 OF THE HON'BLE J.F.C.M.-V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶82

ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.12850/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶83

ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.767/2020 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION.

¶84

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL

¶85

/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE

Highles Miranda v. Philomina

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Highles Miranda v. Philomina

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvet Jerome Vs State of Kerala

Perumatty Service Co-Op Bank Vs Sugunasekaran

Kallukadavu Muslim Jama- Ath Vs the District Collector

Mathew Sebastian, Vs Dr. K.C.Kurian

U.v.Abraham Vs the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

A.Bovas Vs the Arbitrator (N.H.) and District Collector