WP(C)/17245/2012 of SELEENA KOCHUKUTTY Vs UNION OF INDIA on 31 December 2012

J U D G M E N T

K.M. Joseph, J

The prayer sought in the Writ Petition is as follows :

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature ofmandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 toafford police protection to the petitioner againstillegal contumacious and culpable acts ofrespondents 6 and 7 and to direct respondents 4and 5 to ensure protection to the life and property ofthe petitioner after reinstating the petitioner, seniorcitizen, in her own house, by evicting respondents 6and 7 from the residential house of the petitionerwith immediate effect.mandamus directing the respondents 4 and 5 toafford police protection to the petitioner againstillegal contumacious and culpable acts ofrespondents 6 and 7 and to direct respondents 4and 5 to ensure protection to the life and property ofthe petitioner after reinstating the petitioner, seniorcitizen, in her own house, by evicting respondents 6and 7 from the residential house of the petitionerwith immediate effect.

ii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order as thisHonourable Court may deem just and proper toissue in the circumstances of the case by declaringthat, the respondents 6 and 7, being aged 33 yearsand 34 years respectively, are not entitled totrespass into the residential house and the propertyof the petitioner and to reside in the residentialhouse owned by the petitioner, after throwing thepetitioner out of her own house, as the petitioner,senior citizen, refuses to accept any pleadings oflegal relationship of mother and that of a daughteramongst the petitioner who is a senior citizen andthe 6[th] respondent, who is the married daughter ofthe petitioner, in the above facts and circumstances.Honourable Court may deem just and proper toissue in the circumstances of the case by declaringthat, the respondents 6 and 7, being aged 33 yearsand 34 years respectively, are not entitled totrespass into the residential house and the propertyof the petitioner and to reside in the residentialhouse owned by the petitioner, after throwing thepetitioner out of her own house, as the petitioner,senior citizen, refuses to accept any pleadings oflegal relationship of mother and that of a daughteramongst the petitioner who is a senior citizen andthe 6[th] respondent, who is the married daughter ofthe petitioner, in the above facts and circumstances.

iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order as thisHonourable Court may deem just and proper toissue in the circumstances of the case by declaringthat, no citizen of India can 'ordinarily' or'permanently' or 'indefinitely' reside, as of right,along with any senior citizen, even in the case ofthat senior citizen being a father or a mother orgrant parents, beyond the age of maturity, withoutwritten, implied or otherwise consent of such seniorHonourable Court may deem just and proper toissue in the circumstances of the case by declaringthat, no citizen of India can 'ordinarily' or'permanently' or 'indefinitely' reside, as of right,along with any senior citizen, even in the case ofthat senior citizen being a father or a mother orgrant parents, beyond the age of maturity, withoutwritten, implied or otherwise consent of such senior citizen, with whom such citizen resides or intends toreside, hereinafter especially on the facts andcircumstances that, it is the STATE and not theparents or grant parents, who is liable to look afterit's citizen in the wake of enactment of theMaintenance and Welfare of Parents and SeniorCitizens Act, 2007 and Kerala Maintenance andWelfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rule 2009.

iv) Issue such other appropriate writ, order as thisHonourable Court may deem just and properdirecting the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to urgently actin accordance with law to save the person andproperty of the petitioner, senior citizen, from thedisrespect, neglect and threat to the life of thepetitioner from the respondents 6 and 7 and directthe 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to file a report beforethis Honourable Court consisting of periodic reviewregarding the progress of the implementation of theprovisions of the Maintenance and Welfare ofParents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in the state ofKerala, as envisaged in section 31 and section 32 ofthe said Act.”Honourable Court may deem just and properdirecting the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to urgently actin accordance with law to save the person andproperty of the petitioner, senior citizen, from thedisrespect, neglect and threat to the life of thepetitioner from the respondents 6 and 7 and directthe 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to file a report beforethis Honourable Court consisting of periodic reviewregarding the progress of the implementation of theprovisions of the Maintenance and Welfare ofParents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, in the state ofKerala, as envisaged in section 31 and section 32 ofthe said Act.”

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows :

The petitioner, is a senior citizen. The petitioner isaggrieved by the contumacious and culpable acts of threat,assault and violence and vexation against the person andproperty of the petitioner by the respondents 6 and 7, who arenone other than the only daughter and son-in law of thepetitioner. The petitioner who is the owner in possession of herresidential premises is facing serious threat to her life andproperty from the respondents 6 and 7 who are persistentlythreatening the petitioner to assign the entire landed propertiesalong with the residential house therein, in the name of the WP(c). No.17245/12

3

respondents 6 and 7 or face death, in the hands of therespondents 6 and 7.

3. The respondents 6 and 7 who are in inimical terms withthe petitioner had trespassed into the residential house of thepetitioner, before 6 months and are now remaining in theproperty of the petitioner, without any manner of rightswhatsoever, as a trespass, after throwing away the petitioner intothe road side.

4. Every effort of the petitioner to get rid of respondents 6and 7 failed. The petitioner is aggrieved that, the respondents 6and 7 are now residing in the house of the petitioner against theconsent of the petitioner as a trespass into the right of thepetitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is of the view that it is theSTATE which is liable and responsible to look after it's citizen.And the state cannot fasten the responsibility to look after therespondents 6 and 7, who are aged 33 and 34 years respectively,with the petitioner, senior citizen, against her consent and againsther right to person and property.

5. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned counsel for party respondents.

6. We have already passed an interim order that policeprotection will be granted to the life of the petitioner as against WP(c). No.17245/12

respondents 6 and 7.

7. We noticed that a suit is pending. The suit is one seekinginjunction. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the viewthat we should dispose of the writ petition by continuing theinterim order for protection of life and directing that the MunsiffCourt, Ernakulam will dispose of O.S.No.332 of 2012 filed by thepetitioner within a time limit. In the circumstances of the case,we pass the following judgment :

There will be a direction to the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam totake up O.S.332 of 2012 and dispose of the same finally beforethe Court closes for summer vacation, 2013. We further directthat the 5[th] respondent will give effective police protection to thelife of the petitioner as against respondents 6 and 7 as and whenrequired. The civil court will dispose of the matter untramelled byanything contained in the judgment.

Sd/-

K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

Sou.

Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE.

// True copy //