A writ appeal was dismissed where the High Court upheld an order granting police protection to a senior citizen father against alleged abuse by his son, who also contested the petition on property rights but failed to appear in the original suit.
The writ appeal is dismissed.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 22ND MAGHA, 1943
WA NO. 222 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25613/2021 DATED 17.12.2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
BUHARI, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. DAVOOD KUNJU, BUHARI MANZIL, NETTIKUNNU, MADATHARA P.O., KALLAYAPURAM, KOLLAM 691 541.
BY ADVS. P.P.BIJU S.R.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 DAVOOD KUNJU, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. PICHAKANNU RAWTHER, BUHARI MANZIL, NETTIKUNNU, MADATHARA P.O., KALLAYAPURAM, KOLLAM 691 541.
BY ADV.REKHA C NAIR, GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Writ Appeal No.222 of 2022
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
Writ Appeal No.222 of 2022
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2022.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.25613 of 2021. The appellant was the third respondent in the writ petition.
The first respondent, who is a senior citizen aged 67 years, instituted the writ petition alleging that the appellant is coercing him to transfer his rights over the residential property where he is presently residing and also abusing him demanding that he shall vacate the property. It was also alleged by the first respondent that the appellant has forcefully took away his mobile phone, bank pass book, cheque book and also 30
Writ Appeal No.222 of 2022
3
sovereigns of gold ornaments kept in the wardrobe. It was alleged that the appellant has took the key of his car forcefully, after beating him. It was further alleged by the first respondent that the appellant is beating him every night after consuming liquor. The case set out by the first respondent in the writ petition was that although he preferred complaints to the police, no action is being taken. The writ petition was filed, therefore, for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 police officers to provide effective and adequate police protection to the first respondent to protect his life from the physical harassment of the appellant. The first respondent has also prayed for appropriate directions to respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the appellant keeps away from the residential house so as to enable him to have a peaceful living in the house.
directing the third respondent to ensure that the first respondent is afforded adequate and effective protection from any person including the appellant.
4
Writ Appeal No.222 of 2022
on receipt of notice. The writ petition, in the circumstances, was disposed of by the learned Single Judge making the interim order dated 17.11.2021 absolute. The appellant is aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal.
that though the residential property in which the first respondent is residing originally belonged to the first respondent, he transferred the same to the mother of the appellant and on the death of the mother of the appellant, the appellant also acquired a right in the property. It was argued by the learned counsel that the writ petition was filed as if the first respondent is the absolute owner of the property, which is incorrect. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the appellant and his family have been residing with the first respondent and they have no other place to reside and in the light of the impugned judgment, the first respondent is not
Writ Appeal No.222 of 2022
5
permitting the appellant to reside with him in the family house. According to the learned counsel, in so far as the appellant has a right in the property, the learned Single Judge was not justified in making the interim order absolute. The learned counsel has also argued that the appellant has no objection in granting police protection to the first respondent and his only grievance in the appeal concerns his right to reside in the family house.
6
Writ Appeal No.222 of 2022
fault with for having granted the interim order referred to above and having made the interim order absolute. The writ appeal, in the circumstances is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. It is however, made clear that the impugned judgment will not preclude the appellant from enforcing his rights, if any, in the property referred to in the writ petition, in accordance with law.
Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.
Mn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have granted interim orders regarding protection and residence rights in a family domestic dispute.
Whether the appellant has a right to seek review instead of filing a writ appeal against an ex parte order.
Buhari
Davood Kunju
District Police Chief
Station House Officer
P.B. Suresh Kumar
C.S. Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
