Kerala High Court
Muraleedharan vs Jincy on 4 February, 2014
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938
OP (FC).No. 198 of 2014 (R)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2530/2012 IN OP 1402/2012 of FAMILY
COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
-------------------------
MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.BALAN, KUNNALATH VEEDU,
KOZHINJAMPARA, NATTUKKAL POST,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 554.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------
JINCY, AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O VIJAYAKUMAR,
NADUNJARAKKALAM VEEDU, PUDUNAGARAM,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 503.
BY ADV.SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No. 198 of 2014 (R)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P 1402/2012 ON THE FILE
OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CONDITIONAL ATTACHMENT
ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD IN I.A.NO.2530/2012 IN M.O.P
1402/12
EXHIBIT P3 : A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1914/2013 IN I.A.NO.2530/2013 IN
M.O.P.1402/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1914/2013 IN M.O.P NO.1402/2012 ON THE FILE OF
THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P5 : A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER WITH
RESPECT TO THE HOUSE SITUATED IN ITEM NO.1 OF THE ATTACHMENT SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2014 IN
I.A.NO.1914/2013 IN I.A NO.2530/2012 IN O.P NO.1402/2012
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
&
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
O.P.(F.C).No.198 of 2014
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J Petitioner challenges Ext.P6 by which an application for vacating the order of attachment has been dismissed by the Family Court . According to the petitioner, two items of property were attached. The claim in the original petition is for return of gold ornaments and money. According to the petitioner, item No.1 property is having an extent of 40 cents and built up area of 5800 sq.feet. According to him, the value of item No.1 property by itself would come to Rs.1.60 crores. As far as item No.2 property is concerned, it is having an extent of 17 cents. The contention of the petitioner is that item No.1 property itself is sufficient security for the claim made by the respondent and therefore there is no reason to attach both items. Hence he sought for vacating the attachment of item No.2 property.
2. The Family Court, having considered the matter, observed that there is no evidence to show that the value of item No.1 property will fetch the amount as claimed by the petitioner and therefore the application is dismissed. O.P.(F.C) No.198/2014 2
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. When an application for vacating the attachment is filed, necessarily the applicant will have to produce proof to show that the item offered as security or attachment is sufficient enough to take care of the decree that may possibly be passed against the petitioner. In this case, there was no evidence to prove the said fact and therefore we do not find that the Family Court had committed any error in dismissing the application. If at all the petitioner is able to produce necessary materials to prove the value of item No.1 property, it is possible for the petitioner to substantiate before the Family Court that the said item by itself is enough for taking care of the possible decree amount. In such event, it shall be open for the Family Court to re-consider the said issue and pass appropriate orders.
With the above observation, this writ petition is closed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) (sd/-) (K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jsr