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 purchase loan for purchase of the secured asset from Mr. Baiju M., the 3rd respondent, at a time when Ext. P1 order was in force, by fraud, conspiring with the officials of Devan Housing and Finance Corporation Ltd., the 1st respondent, and defaulted EMI with the intention to evict the appellant from her shared household.

c) Appellant has further submitted that she is confronted with Ext. P5 order passed by the Authorized Officer, Devan Housing and Finance Corporation Ltd., the 2nd respondent, which is not sustainable in view of Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and also in view of Ext. P1 order in C. M. P. No. 7289 of 2016 dated 04.06.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class - II, Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram District. If the Authorized Officer, the 2nd respondent, is permitted to proceed with Ext. P5 order, appellant would be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardships.

3. Adverting to the rival submissions, writ court, by judgment in W. P. (C) No. 13420 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019, declined to grant the reliefs sought for.

4. Relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereunder:-

“5. I have considered the afore submissions with some amount of care, since I am aware that the petitioner's claims are founded on the protective provisions of the DV Act. Normally, I would have been loathe to make any orders that would, in any manner, impinge the rights of the petitioner; but unfortunately, in this case, the factual situation is not in her favour. I say this because she has obtained an injunction against her husband-the 3rd respondent but unfortunately, whatever be the reason, the said order had not been informed to the Sub Registrar's Office in time. This enabled the 3rd respondent to make use of the opportunity and sell the property to respondents 4 and 5 who, with or without information of such an order of injunction, approached the Bank for a Purchase Loan and the Bank granted it on the strength of an equitable mortgage created by them over the property in question.

6. Obviously, therefore, the accusation of the petitioner, primarily, can only be against the 3rd respondent and it may then spread over to respondents 4 and 5, as also to respondents 1 and 2, but only if she is able to establish, through cogent and reliable evidence, that they were fully aware of the order of injunction at the time when the transaction was completed. These are issues that the petitioner must raise and pursue before the appropriate Forum, if she is so interested, but she is not justified in approaching this Court through this Writ Petition seeking the reliefs, as have been sought for by her herein.

7. My opinion as afore is bolstered by the fact that the petitioner herself then agrees that she has challen