IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36247 of 2009(R)
1. R.VIJAYAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.K.LALANA KUMARI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :16/12/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioner has disputes with his wife proper as also
with the 1st respondent, who claims to be his wife. There are
several proceedings between the petitioner on the one hand and
his wife on the other. There are also proceedings between the
petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, the alleged wife
and the alleged daughter of the petitioner. It is unnecessary to
advert to all the details of the litigation in this judgment.
2. O.P.No.598 of 2007 has been filed by the 2nd
respondent herein for amounts due from the petitioner. The 2nd
respondent in that O.P claims that the petitioner herein is her
father and is consequently liable to make payment of amounts to
her. That O.P.No.598 of 2007 was received on file. Long later
I.A.No.2448 of 2008 was filed by the 1st respondent herein for an
order of attachment of an item of property belonging to the
petitioner and his mother. Attachment was ordered.
W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 2
3. In the meantime in M.C.No.26 of 2005 the Family
Court had held that the petitioner is the father of the 2nd
respondent. That order is challenged and the challenge is
pending before this Court as R.P.F.C No.24 of 2007.
4. A request was made that O.P.No.598 of 2007 may be
stayed pending disposal of the R.P.F.C. That prayer has been
allowed. The matter stands stayed.
5. According to the petitioner, he wants to dispose of the
property under attachment and has already transferred his title
over the property under Ext.P8 document. In Ext.P8 there are
recitals to show that provision has been made to satisfy the claim
for which attachment has been ordered.
6. What then is the grievance of the petitioner now? The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to
provide security for the entire claim in O.P.No.598 of 2007 to the
satisfaction of the court below. But he is unable to move the
Court to accept such security and vacate the order of attachment
because O.P.No.598 of 2007 stands stayed.
7. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the
W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 3
court below is directed to consider the petitioner’s application
for lifting the order of attachment notwithstanding the order of
stay in O.P.No.598 of 2007.
8. To us, the said request appears to be absolutely
reasonable. O.P.No.598 of 2007 is stayed because of the
pendency of R.P.F.C No.24 of 2007. But that pendency should
not deter the court from considering the application for lifting of
the attachment ordered as per order in I.A.No.2448 of 2008. If
the petitioner is willing to offer adequate security, the Family
Court will definitely have to consider the prayer for lifting the
attachment ordered as per order in I.A.No.2448 of 2008
notwithstanding the order of stay in O.P.NO.598 of 2007.
9. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to order
notice to the respondents in this Writ Petition. We need only
direct the Family Court to consider the petitioner’s application
for lifting the order of attachment in I.A.No.2448 of 2009 on
merits and in accordance with law if an application to that effect
is filed by the petitioner, notwithstanding the order of stay in
O.P.598/07..
10. This Writ Petition is allowed in part to the above
extent.
W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 4
11. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned
counsel for the petitioner who shall produce the same before the
Family Court along with his application to lift the judgment
ordered in I.A.No.2448 of 2008 in O.P.No.598 of 2007.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-