Biju.C.V. vs Deeba Mole on 23 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28374 of 2010(R)


1. BIJU.C.V., CHATHAMANSSERIYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DEEBA MOLE, D/O.BALAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :23/09/2010

 O R D E R
           R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
                     ***********************
                   W.P(C) No.28374 of 2010
                  *****************************
           Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is

filed by the petitioner/husband/judgment debtor, against whom

proceedings in execution for recovery of the amount by arrest

and detention has been initiated by the respondent/decree

holder/wife. Warrant of arrest is issued against the petitioner, it

is submitted. At this juncture, the petitioner has rushed to this

Court. What is his grievance ? The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that there is a property available under

attachment. The same can be brought to sale. At any rate, in

these circumstances, there is no necessity to hurriedly execute

the direction for payment by arrest and detention of the

petitioner. The petitioner is willing to pay the amount if some

further time is given as he expects certain amounts from his

employer consequent to termination of his employment.

2. After discussions at the Bar, it is fairly conceded that

there is no legal defect or inadequacy in the proceedings

initiated. The short prayer of the counsel is that if some time

W.P(C) No.28374 of 2010 2

were granted, the consequence of arrest and detention can be

avoided. We feel that this submission must be made before the

Family Court and the bona fides of the petitioner must be

established before the court below by making part payment and

requesting for time. We have no reasons to assume that the

court below shall not consider such request if made with

compassion, if the bona fides of the petitioner were revealed to

the Court. At any rate, we are not satisfied that there is any

justifiable reason to invoke our extraordinary constitutional

jurisdiction under Article 227.

3. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the

above observations.

4. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)

rtr/