IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 719 of 2007()
1. P.AMBIKA, D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.KUNJAPPU PANICKER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.D.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :17/06/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
Matrimonial Appeal No. 719 OF 2007
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Kurian Joseph, J.
This appeal is filed against the order dated 26.11.2007 in
I.A.No.1345/2007 in O.P.No.504/2007 on the file of the Family
Court, Thrissur. As per the said order, the Family Court vacated
the interim order of conditional attachment made on the
scheduled property. It is seen from the order that the court has
further dealt with the merits of the case and has made
observations which are not required or warranted for the purpose
of disposal of the petition.
2. We heard the counsel appearing on both sides.
Sri.N.P.Samuel, counsel for the respondent submits that a mere
allegation itself will not be sufficient so as to pass a conditional
order of attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The appellant-petitioner should disclose the
M.A.No. 719/07 2
basis of the apprehension and the source of information
regarding transfer.
3. On going through the petition for attachment, it is seen
that the appellant-petitioner has referred to her relief and has
stated that in order to secure the decree that is likely to be
passed, attachment is necessary since she apprehends transfer
of the scheduled property. Learned counsel for the respondent,
however, submits that the respondent has presently no idea to
dispose of the residential property since it is the only property
available with him. We record the above submission.
4. In the above circumstances, we do not think that any
interference with the orders is necessary at this stage since the
respondent has undertaken that there is no proposal for
alienation of the plaint schedule property. We make it clear that,
in case the respondent proposes to alienate the property during
the pendency of the suit, the respondent will move the court
below and seek appropriate permission for the same.
We direct the Family Court, Thrissur to dispose of
O.P.No.504/2007 within a period of six months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that the
M.A.No. 719/07 3
original petition shall be disposed of untrammelled by any of the
observations or findings in the impugned order.
This appeal is disposed of as above.
KURIAN JOSEPH
JUDGE
HARUN-UL-RASHID
JUDGE
smp
M.A.No. 719/07 4
KURIAN JOSEPH &
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
M.A. No. 719 OF 2007
J U D G M E N T
17.06.2008