Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot invalidate previously confirmed property sales conducted lawfully.

JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the Ochanthuruth Service Co-

operative Bank Limited, praying for a direction to the 1^st respondent to register Ext.P10 certificate of sale issued in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 83 (5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (in short ‘the Rules’)

The brief facts are as follows:-

2. The 2^nd respondent availed credit facilities from the petitioner Bank. When default was committed, the Bank initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 and obtained Ext.P3 award dated 26.11.2021, determining the liability of the 2^nd respondent. On the award being put to execution, the 2^nd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.12632 of 2024, which was disposed of on 11.04.2024, permitting him to clear the entire liability in 18 monthly instalments. The 2^nd respondent failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, prompting the petitioner Bank to bring the mortgaged property to sale. The property was sold in auction on 20.3.2025. On the property being put up for auction, the 2^nd respondent filed W.P(C)No.10046 of 2025, in which Ext.P6 interim order was passed on 13.03.2025 directing that the sale shall not be confirmed for a period of three months. Thereafter, when W.P(C)No.10046 of 2025 was taken up on 14.08.2025, this Court was informed that the sale had taken place. Thus, this Court passed the following order:-

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the purchase money, together with 5% of the purchase money within one month.

This submission is recorded.

2. Based on this submission, the coercive proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall stand deferred for a period of one month from this day. In the event the petitioner fails to deposit the amount as undertaken, the competent authority is at liberty to proceed against the him in accordance with law.”

The 2^nd respondent failed to comply with the undertaking given before this Court, following which Ext.P9 order was passed by the Joint Registrar (General), Ernakulam confirming the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of a third person. Ext.P9 order of confirmation of sale is dated 03.11.2025. Thereafter Ext.P10 sale certificate was also issued by the Joint Registrar on 13.11.2025. When the sale certificate was brought before the 1st respondent foe registration, the petitioner was informed that the additional 4^th respondent, who is none other than the wife of the 2^nd respondent, had obtained an order dated

19.11.2025 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (in short ‘the 2005 Act’), through which the 2^nd respondent was restrained from alienating the mortgaged property. The 1st respondent, therefore, refused to register the sale certificate. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Despite service of notice by special messenger, there is no appearance for the 2^nd respondent or for the additional 4^th respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated by the additional 4^th respondent under the provisions of the 2005 Act is nothing but an abuse of process of court. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent and the additional 4^th respondent are even now living together under the same roof and there are absolutely no matrimonial issues between them. It is submitted that the provisions of the 2005 Act have been misused to ensure that the proceedings initiated by the Bank to recover amounts due from the 2^nd respondent by sale of his property are prevented in some manner. It is submitted that ev