IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36766 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OP.563/2006 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VASANTHAKUMARI, D/O. GOURIKUTTY, PALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KODANNOOR, MOONGADU MURI, CHANNAPETTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRASANNA RAJENDRA PRASAD, SATHYAMANGALAM VEEDU, VILLUMALA, KIZHAKKEKARA, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. NAYANA P. RAJENDRAN, AGED 28, SATHYAMANGALAM VEEDU, VILLUMALA, KIZHAKKEKARA, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AGED 48, ILLIKULATHU VEEDU, VILLUMALA, KIZHAKKEKARA, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36766 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The prayer made in this writ petition is to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1803 of 2006 by issuing appropriate writ and also to direct the Family Court, Kottarakkara, to number Ext.P5 I.A. and to hear the same expeditiously. 2. The petitioner herein is the first petitioner in the I.A. stated to be unnumbered in O.P.No.563 of 2006 and respondents 2 to 4 herein are the respondents in the said I.A. The main Original Petition is filed by the respondents for realisation of certain amounts from her husband, the third respondent herein, and also for monthly maintenance. Along with the original petition, an interlocutory application was filed to attach the plaint schedule property which is allowed and the property was attached. But according to the petitioner, the W.P.(C) No.36766/2008 2 property mentioned in Ext.P1 attachment schedule is owned and possessed by the petitioner herein. She has filed O.S.No.292 of 2004 before the Munsiff Court, Punalur, claiming ¾ share in the schedule properties and also for injunction. According to the petitioner, the said suit was decreed. But no decree as such is produced. There is also Appeal as A.S.No.70/2007 against the said decree and is still pending before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Exts.P3 and P4 are orders passed in the interim application in the said appeal. It was in the mean while, an application was moved for lifting the attachment and it is the case of the petitioner that the said petition is not numbered and hence the petitioner seeks appropriate directions from this Court. 3. As regards the prayer for quashing the order of attachment, no relief can be granted by this Court at this stage. Remarks obtained from the Family Court shows that I.A. was actually numbered as I.A.No.1157 of 2008 on 28.4.2008 and on 13.5.2008 on which date the original petition was posted, the I.A. was also taken up. The remarks also refers to the appeal, W.P.(C) No.36766/2008 3 A.S.No.70/2007, pending before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, against the decree in O.S.No.292/2004. The counter petitioners sought time for filing objection and the case was adjourned. It was admitted by all concerned that the appeal is against the decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No.292 of 2004 from the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, relating to the attachment of the property, and it was stayed by the appellate court. So, the dispute with regard to the title has to be finally resolved in the appeal. Hence evidence was taken in the original petition and the same stood adjourned to 12.1.2009. 4. From the above remarks of the Family Court, it is obvious that the petitioner's contention that I.A. is not numbered is incorrect. Further, for the reasons already stated by the Family Court, the said I.A. cannot be disposed of now for the reason that the very title dispute is to be resolved by the appellate court. In such circumstances, the petitioner is free to move the appellate court for early disposal of the appeal and W.P.(C) No.36766/2008 4 thereafter move for necessary orders in I.A. Without prejudice to the above right, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nj.