IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2069 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O.SULAIMAN PILLAI, SULFATHU BANGLAW, OZHUKUPARA,PERINGAMALA PO, PERINGAMALA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR),NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGAMALA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THAJINISA, THAJINISA MANZIL, KAPPUKADU, KOTTOR PO, KUTTICHAL,NEDUMANGAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 2069 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The notice sent to the 3rd respondent returned 'unclaimed'. In the said circumstance, service is declared as complete. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the recovery proceedings initiated against him under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, in respect of the amount stated as payable to the 3rd respondent in MC 32/2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kattakada under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce) Act, 1986. Eventhough the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate was more than Rs.3 lakhs, it was subsequently reduced by the Sessions Court in Revision, limiting the liability to 2.89 lakhs (wrongly typed as 2.8 in the Writ Petition) as evident from Ext.P1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not in a position to raise the entire amount in a lump sum and hence that he might be permitted to clear the liability in phased manner. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking note of the fact that no challenge is raised from the part of the 3rd respondent who has not chosen to appear before this Court despite WP(C) No.2069/2010 2 issuance of notice, this Court finds the petitioner can be permitted to clear the liability by way of reasonable instalments. 4. Accordingly, after giving credit to the amount of 'one lakh' stated as deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 21.01.2010, the balance amount is permitted to be cleared by way of ‘six’ equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be effected on or before the 10th March, 2010, to be followed by similar instalments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all further coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in satisfying the liability as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the entire amount in a lump sum. It is made clear that the petitioner will stand permitted to effect the deposits as above, directly before the concerned Magistrate's Court in M.C. 32/2002. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc