Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22316
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, MARY JOSEPH, JJ
NOORSHAH – Appellant
Versus
SHANITHA Advocate - SRI T S AJITH, SRI T S AJITH,CHINCY GOPAKUMAR – Respondent
OP (FAMILY COURT) 355/2015
Judicial respect for existing protection orders is paramount, and seeking an interim injunction that conflicts with such orders is impermissible.
Headnote:
Injunction - Family Disputes - Code of Civil Procedure Section 39 - The court denied an interim injunction due to the existence of a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing that granting such relief would conflict with the prior judicial order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the respondent, alleging obstruction to his peaceful enjoyment of property amid ongoing matrimonial discord. The respondent contested this, citing a prior protection order concerning domestic violence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner violated a protection order issued by a Magistrate. It emphasized the need to respect existing judicial mandates and concluded that granting the injunction would conflict with the Magistrate's order.
Issues: Whether the interim injunction sought by the petitioner would contravene the existing protection order under the Domestic Violence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the need to uphold judicial orders and prevent conflicting rulings outweighed the petitioner's claim of property rights, thus denying the injunction.
Final Decision: The original petition was disposed of without granting the interim injunction.
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
In this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging an order passed by the Family court, Thrissur in I.A.No.2365 in O.P.No.794/15. By virtue of the said order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P4, the court below had dismissed an interim injunction application filed by the petitioner, under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The petitioner herein had filed O.P.No.794/15, seeking relief by way of a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent herein from causing any obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment and residence of the petitioner and his family members in the petition scheduled property and from causing any damage or waste therein, and in the residential building situated therein. Allegations in the original petition in brief is that; there exists severe matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the respondent. The petition scheduled property exclusively belongs to the petitioner and the residential building situated therein was constructed by him, and that the said property is under the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. It is stated that, during February 2014, the petitioner shifted the residence to the newly constructed house therein along with the respondent, their children and the mother of the petitioner. But thereafter the respondent had left the house on the basis of a quarrel with the petitioner and she started separate living at her parental home. But when the petitioner was in Malaysia, at his place of employment, the respondent along with the children had occupied and started residence in the building, after obtaining key of the house from the mother of the petitioner.
The petitioner had not expressed any objection against such residence. But the respondent had submitted false complaints against the petitioner and had removed the furniture and other articles from the house. The petitioner could not prevent such activities, since he was in Malaysia. But when he returned to the native place on 25.05.2015, it was found that, apart from the respondent and the children other family members of the respondent are also residing in scheduled property. It is specifically alleged that, because of the nuisance caused by the respondent and her family members, the petitioner could not reside in the house peacefully. It is also contended that the respondent and her family members have threatened the petitioner with dare consequences and hence the petitioner could not reside in the house peacefully. It is alleging that the respondent is not permitting the petitioner to reside in the building situated in the plaint scheduled in a peaceful manner, the relief by way of prohibitory injunction is sought for in the original petition.
3. In the application for temporary injunction, which is filed as Ext.P2, it is specifically stated that because of the threat created by the respondents and her family members, the petitioner is prevented from residing in the residential building situated in the scheduled property. Hence an interim injunction is sought for to the extent of restraining the respondent and her family members from causing any obstruction to the residence of the petitioner in the building and from possessing and enjoying the same and also for restraining the respondent from causing any damage or waste in the property.
4. The respondent herein filed objections to the interim application by stating that, there is an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under the Protection of Women from Domestive Violance Act, in M.P.No.11568/14, restraining the petitioner from forcefully evicting the respondent from the building situated in the plaint scheduled property. According to the respondent, after returning from Malaysia the petitioner is residing in his ancestral house situated nearby. But in violation of the protection order, the petitioner had threatened the respondent and forcefully s
