Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate protection to the petitioner to shift her articles from the rented premises, free from the threat of the 5th respondent.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to take action of Ext.P9 complaint filed by the petitioner.
c) Declare that the petitioner is not bound by Ext.P3 & Ext.P5 agreement allegedly executed by the petitioner's husband and the 5th respondent.
d) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that there was some financial transaction between the husband of the petitioner and 5th respondent, to which 6th respondent stood as a surety. It is stated that, admittedly the petitioner is residing along with her husband and child in a rented house. In connection with the financial transaction, respondents 5 and 6 are allegedly taking the law into their hands and are preventing the petitioner from taking her household articles from the present rented house to the place, to which the petitioner intends to shift her residence. It is stated that the petitioner is in no way connected with the 5th respondent, nor has she executed any agreement. Petitioner also contends that the house hold articles kept in the rented building were in fact gifted to her from different corners including the parents in connection with the marriage and such other functions. The version of the petitioner is that husband does not have any right or interest over the household articles and hence the party respondents cannot resist the petitioner from shifting the same.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that a civil suit has already been filed by the 5th respondent (as stated in ground No. 4 of the writ petition) as O.S. No.448 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Paravur. Learned counsel further concedes that an interim order has already been passed by the said court, whereby there is a restriction in removing the household articles from the building in question. But the version of the petitioner is that, the household articles are not belonging to her husband and that she is entitled to shift them from the present rented premises to another building and that the forceful obstruction from the part of respondents 5 and 6 is illegal and is liable to be interfered. The request made by petitioner before Police has not yielded to any positive result and hence the writ petition.
4. Heard learned Government Pleader as well.
5. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view, that the basic issue is with regard to the financial transaction between the husband of the petitioner (who is not a party to this Writ Petition) and respondents 5 and 6. The fact remains that a civil suit is pending as O.S. No.448 of 2014 before Sub Court, Paravur and an interim order is in existence. It is always open for the petitioner to approach the civil court, if not a party, by filing necessary proceedings and to get appropriate orders, if the household articles kept in the premises are actually belonging to the petitioner, so as to shift the same to other premises.
Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/24/06