IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 23666 of 2009(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 56/2007. IN OP.1423/2004 of CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SHAILAJA.K.K W/O. BRAHMADAS, VENNENGOTTU HOUSE, VENKITTANGU P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.V.A.LAZIDA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 3. PUSHPAN.N.N. NEDIYEDATHU HOUSE, MULLASSERY, THRISSUR DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.23666 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the arrest warrant issued against her by the District Consumer Forum, Thrissur. 2. The petitioner is the third respondent in O.P.No.1423/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Redressal Forum. The complaint was registered against the petitioner and four others in their capacity as the partners of M/s. Aiswarya Finance. The petitioner's husband was also one of the partners of the firm. The complaint was filed before the Forum claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. 3. As per the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum the respondents herein was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 14%. 4. The petitioner along with others filed an appeal before the District Consumer Redressal Forum as per Ext.P1. There was another O.P.No.1425/2004 wherein also a similar direction to pay Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 14% from 24/12/2001. The firm has also deposited Rs.25,000/- and Rs.12,500/- respectively in both the cases. In the meanwhile W.P.(C)No.23666 of 2009 2 E.A.No.55/2007 was filed in O.P.No.1425/2004 and E.A.No.56/2007 was filed in O.P.No.1423/2004. It is pointed out that the petitioner along with her husband has entered appearance therein and attempts are being made to disburse the payment also. Later arrest warrant was issued on 30/7/2009. In E.A.No.56/2007 and in E.A.No.55/2007 also an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner and others. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the same being a woman. It is pointed out that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the Division Bench in Mary Chacko Vs. Jancy Joseph (2005(3) KLT 925) therein it was held as follows: “When a decree for money is sought to be executed under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act by a Civil Court, necessarily Civil Court has to bear in mind section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure which states that the Court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for payment of money. Therefore, when Civil Court is executing an order passed by the Forum it cannot order arrest of a woman for recovery of the amount. Section 27 of the Act also confers additional power upon the Forum to execute its order. When an order is sought to be executed under section 25 by a Civil Court, woman cannot be arrested in execution of the order passed by W.P.(C)No.23666 of 2009 3 the Forum since section 56 is applicable in execution of the decree through a Civil Court. Same analogy could be applied when the Forum itself seeks to execute a similar order under section 27 of the Act. Just like Civil Court, in our view, Forum should also bear in mind the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure when an application is made before it for arrest of a woman in execution of money decree. The Forum should bear in mind the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure when powers under section 27 are exercised. We also subscribe the same view when an application is made not only under section 25 but also under section 27 of the Act for execution of an order passed by the Forum for realisation of money. Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be equated with that of the RDB Act especially when the order has been passed for realisation of money.” 6. In the light of the above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed the writ petition as she cannot be put in civil prison. The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 3/7/2009 in E.A.No.56/2007 and order dated 18/2/2009 in E.A.No.55/2007 as far as the petitioner is concerned are hereby set aside. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj