Asha, J. Petitioner herein is the petitioner in O.P(FC) No.1484 of 2002 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said O.P was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment granting a decree in favour of the respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner herein, setting aside cancellation deed No.1099/2000 dated 12.05.2000 of S.R.O, Murukumpuzha and declaring that the petitioner - Baby Girija, has got the right to reside in the building in the petition schedule item No.1 and to enjoy the said property. The petitioner herein was also restrained from obstructing Smt. Baby Girija from creating any document in respect of the property. That judgment was affirmed in Ext.P2 judgment by this Court in Mat.Appeal No.622 of 2009. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.87 of 2013 seeking orders for proceeding against the petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 32 and to prosecute him in order to give effect the decree dated 12.2.2009. The contention of the petitioner in the E.P was that the petitioner herein was causing obstruction to her in enjoying the property.
2. The court below after adducing evidence and hearing the parties passed Ext.P4 order. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order.
3. We have examined the findings rendered by the court below with reference to the pleadings and arguments raised by both sides. The court below found that there was obstruction caused to the respondent by the petitioner herein to enjoy the property peacefully. The daughter of the parties Smt.Deeja Rani was examined as PW1, who alleged that her father - the petitioner, was causing obstruction to enjoy the property peacefully, by residing in the scheduled property with another lady. Thus on the basis of the materials on record, the court below found that the petitioner has been causing obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the decree holder. The contention of the petitioner that there was no order for eviction or that there was no other house for his residence was repelled by the court below. In the circumstances of the case as evident from Ext.P4 itself, we do not find any circumstance to interfere with Ext.P4 order.
In that view of the matter, this O.P(F.C) fails and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ 04.11.2014 Ramachandran Nair, J.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge The matter was reposted on the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to show some leniency to the petitioner with regard to the sentence awarded. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner has not handed over the key of the building so far. Therefore, we directed the parties to be present before the Court on 27.10.2014. Pursuant to our order, the parties were present and we interacted with the petitioner, the respondent and her mother. We directed the petitioner and the respondent to appear before the Family Court by 11 a.m on 31.10.2014 and to hand over the key of the building to the respondent.
2. Today it is submitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the key has been handed over and the petitioner has taken all his belongings including furnitures from the building.
3. In view of the fact that the petitioner has handed over the key to the respondent, we are inclined to reduce the period of sentence. Instead of the period of one month, it will be sufficient if it is converted as detention for one day and he will appear before the Family Court on 14.11.2014 and the detention is restricted to one day, that means he should undergo the same till the rising of the court on 14.11.2014.
Issue photocopy urgently.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge