High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit petition disposed; directions issued for e...

Nilofiya Palliyali v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.20540 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
  • P. G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date
2022-10-25
Court Decision / Holding
Disposed of the writ petition; directed the Family Court, Tirur to dispose of O.P.482/2021, O.P.279/2022 and M.C.2022 within four months from production of a certified copy of this judgment; directed the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi to dispose of M.C.64/2021 within four months; ordered that police assistance be provided for safety if needed.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed; directions issued for expeditious disposal of listed proceedings within four months and safety assistance as needed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Nilofiya Palliyali
  • Fathaha N.
  • Zain N.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam
  • Mohamed Alfath N.
  • The Circle Inspector of Police, Thirurangadi (suo motu impleaded as Addl. R3)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Pinto Frederic

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri S. Rajmohan, Senior Government Pleader
  • • Adv P.T. Sheejish

Case Synopsis & Summary

Nilofiya Palliyali filed W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 seeking a direction to the Family Court, Tirur, to expeditiously dispose of four cases: O.P.482/2021 (cancellation of a document), O.P.279/2022 (custody of a child), and M.C.202/2022 before the Family Court; plus M.C.64/2021 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi. The petitioner, wife of the second respondent, alleges sustained cruelty and harassment, and asserts that delays in adjudication have caused both physical fear and financial hardship to her and her minor child. She seeks either expeditious disposal or transfer of all cases to the Kozhikode court complex. Initially, the court noted that a writ under Article 226 for such relief may not be maintainable; however, given the petitioner’s precarious situation, it exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Citing Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, the court held that Article 227 power of superintendence is administrative and judicial and can be exercised suo motu to ensure justice. The court directed the Family Court and JMFC to dispose of the listed matters within four months from certified copy of the judgment and to provide police assistance if needed for safety. This welfare‑oriented approach underscores the court’s duty to prevent further hardship to the petitioner and her child and to ensure access to justice.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 227 of the Constitution of IndiaProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Indian Penal Code, ss. 498A, 341, 323Juvenile Justice Act (S.75)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and tribunals; can be exercised suo motu (custodian of justice).
  • Suo motu exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 to ensure justice.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition seeks expeditious disposal of four cases pending in different courts or transfer to the Kozhikode Court complex; contends that delays amount to cruelty and hardship for the petitioner and her minor child, who face threats and lack financial means. It relied on the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to secure swift adjudication, and requested police assistance for safety under DV-related matters where required.

Contentions of Respondents

Argue that the writ under Article 226 for expeditious disposal of multiple proceedings is not maintainable; urge that normal proceedings should run their course in the appropriate fora. Deny allegations of cruelty and emphasize that the remedy lies in regular proceedings rather than a broad directive; view Article 227 relief as exceptional and to be used judiciously.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab[(2006) 8 SCC 294]PositiveCited to support that the High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 is both administrative and judicial and can be exercised suo motu.
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath[(2015) 5 SCC 423]PositiveCited to reiterate that Article 227 can be invoked suo motu as a custodian of justice.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Nilofiya Palliyali v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/ 3RD KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20540 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** - **1 NILOFIYA PALLIYALI, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O ABDUL AZEEZ PALLIYALI, PALLIYALI HOUSE, KADALUNDI NAGARAM POST, MALAPPURAM DIST, KERALA, PIN – 673314.** - **2 FATHAHA N., AGED 11 YEARS( MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN)** - **NILOFIYA PALLIYALI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O ABDUL AZEEZ PALLIYALI, PALLIYALI HOUSE, KADALUNDI NAGARAM POST,** - **MALAPPURAM DIST, KERALA, PIN – 673314.** - **3 ZAIN N., AGED 5 YEARS ( MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN)** - **NILOFIYA PALLIYALI, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O ABDUL AZEEZ PALLIYALI, PALLIYALI HOUSE, KADALUNDI NAGARAM POST, MALAPPURAM DIST, KERALA, PIN – 673314.** **BY ADV PINTO FREDERIC** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSICUTOR ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.** 2 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 **2 MOHAMED ALFATH N., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O KUNJALANKUTTY, NALAKATH HOUSE, CHETTIPADI, PARAPPANANGADI, KOTAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676319.** - **3* THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI** **IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.08.2022 IN WP(C) 20540/2022N R1& R3 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GP BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 12.10.2022, THE COURT ON 25.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ajithkumar, J. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed seeking a direction to the Family Court, Tirur to dispose of within a time frame O.P.No.279 of 2022, O.P.No.482 of 2021, and M.C.No.202 of 2022 pending before that Court. The petitioner also implore a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi to dispose of M.C.No.64 of 2021 pending before that Court expeditiously. Alternatively, the petitioner seeks to transfer all those cases to the courts in the court complex at Kozhikode. 2. When this Writ Petition was filed, it was noticed that considering the reliefs claimed, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be entertained. This Court, after looking into the averments in the Writ Petition directed to number the Writ Petition, observing that its maintainability can be decided on the judicial side. 3. On 24.06.2022, notice was ordered to be served on the 2[nd] respondent. The learned Government Pleader took 4 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 notice for the 1[st] respondent. Additional 3[rd] respondent was impleaded _suo motu_ as per the order dated 10.08.2022. On 26.07.2022, a report from the Taluk Legal Services Committee was called for. On 10.08.2022, after perusal of the report submitted by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Parappanangadi the Project Co-ordinator, Victim Resource Centre (VRC) was directed to render assistance to the petitioner. Accordingly, Advocate M.Shajna was appointed as the mentor of the petitioner, who rendered necessary advice and counseling to the petitioner and assisted this Court while considering this matter. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent, and Advocdate M.Shajna. 5. The relief claimed by the petitioner essentially is a direction to the Family Court, Tirur to dispose of O.P.No.729 of 2022, O.P.No.482 of 2021 and M.C.No.202 of 2022. Another M.C.No.64 of 2021 is pending before the Judicial Magistrate of 5 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 the First Class, Parappanangadi and the petitioner seeks to dispose of that M.C. also within a time frame. The petitioner averred in the petition that the 2[nd] respondent has meted out all sorts of cruelty and harassment on the petitioner and due to the delay in the disposal of the cases, she has been put through much difficulty and agony. 6. The petitioner is the wife of the 2[nd] respondent. O.P.No.482 of 2021 was filed by the 2[nd] respondent for cancellation of the document by virtue of which the petitioner obtained a landed property. O.P.No.279 of 2022 was filed by the 2[nd] respondent for getting custody of the child. M.C.No.202 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner against the 2[nd] respondent claiming maintenance. The petitioner filed M.C.No.64 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanandagi under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 2[nd] respondent has been dragging the cases in his attempt to deny her any kind of relief. The further allegation is that she and her minor child are denied maintenance and 6 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 she has even been attacked physically. It is contended that regarding assault on her police cases have arisen. Pointing out such circumstances, the petitioner seeks to dispose of the cases expeditiously. Alternatively, she seeks to transfer the cases to the Court Complex, Kozhikode. 7. The 2[nd] respondent refutes the allegations and submitted that this Writ Petition is not maintainable. The relief claimed in the petition is expeditious disposal of four cases pending in different courts. Considering the nature of relief claimed and the pleadings, it has to be said that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. But the facts and circumstances of the cases show that a different approach is needed in this Writ Petition. The pleadings and materials on record show that the petitioner is a hapless woman and she has been put through all sorts of difficulties in life; all flow from her marital tie. Therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice to have this Court show indulgence in the matter. Considering the said circumstances, we are of the view that this is a fit case where this court has to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 8. In **Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab [(2006) 8 SCC 294]** the Apex Court held that the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territory of the State is both of administrative and judicial nature and it could be exercised _suo motu_ also. 9. In **Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court reiterated that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the High Court _suo motu_ as a custodian of justice. 10. Now, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed. It is true that the cases are comparatively new. But considering the plight of the petitioner, especially, her inability to lead a peaceful life and lack of means for the sustenance of herself and her minor child, it is only appropriate to direct the Family Court, Tirur, and also the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi to expedite the proceedings in the cases mentioned herein before, to which she is a party. 8 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 11. Accordingly, we dispose of this Writ Petition and direct, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Family Court, Tirur to dispose of O.P.No.482 of 2021, O.P.No.279 of 2022 and also M.C.No.202 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Similarly, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi is directed to dispose of M.C.No.64 of 2021 within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Parappanangadi will see that necessary help and assistance, including through police, is rendered to the petitioner in the event of her complaining of any kind of domestic violence. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** pv/dkr 9 W.P.(C) No.20540 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20540/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**Exhibit P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF O.P.NO.482/2021 FILED**| |---|---| ||**BEFORE TIRUR FAMILY COURT FOR**| ||**CANCELLATION OF DOCUMENT**| |**Exhibit P2**|**PHOTOCOPY**<br>**OF**<br>**FIR**<br>**NO.330/2021**| ||**REGISTERED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT U/S**| ||**498 A IPC AND S.75 JUVENILE JUSTICE**| ||**ACT**| |**Exhibit P3**|**PHOTOCOPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN**| ||**MC.64/2021 BY JFCM COURT PARAPANANGADI**| |**Exhibit P4**|**PHOTOCOPY OF FIR NO.72/2022 U/S 31 OF**| ||**DV ACT, AND S.341,323, OF IPC, CHARGED**| ||**AGAINST**<br>**THE**<br>**RESPONDENT**<br>**BY**| ||**PARAPPANANGADI POLICE**| |**Exhibit P5**|**COPY OF THE GUARDIAN O.P.279/2022**| ||**FILED BY RESPONDENT IN TIRUR FAMILY**| ||**COURT**|