J U D G M E N T

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Before the writ court, appellant/petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“(i) To declare that Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 will prevail over the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 in view of the non obstante clause in Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and other facts.

(ii) The very sanctioning of disbursing the loan by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent for purchasing the secured asset belongs to the 3rd respondent is void-ab-initio in view of Exhibit-

P1 Order.”

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.(C) are as under:

a) According to the petitioner / appellant, she is the wife of Mr.

Baiju M., the 3rd respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 04.03.2010. She is in possession of the secured asset described in Ext. P5 possession notice dated 19.10.2018, authorized by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class - II, Nedumangad, by Ext. P1 order in C. M. P. No. 7289 of 2016 dated 04.06.2016.

b) Appellant has submitted that Mr. Sunil Shaheedu Kutty, the 4th respondent, had obtained a purc