IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 794 of 2008 ---------------------------- O.P. NO. 615/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPURAM. PETITIONER: APPELLANT ------------------------ BADARUDHEEN, S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI, CHEMBRAYOOR PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL (CHANTHIPPARAMBIL), NEAR JUMAYATH PALLI, P.O.PORKKULAM, PAZHANI VIA, THALAPPILLI TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, C.C.ALI, S/O.CHAKKUTTI, RESIDING AT CHEMBRAYOOR, PUTHENPEEDIKAYILHOUSE, PORKULAM. TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ALANGATTU T.LAILA, D/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, VELIYANKODE AMSOM, PAZHANI DESOM, P.O.VELIYANKODE PAZHANI, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FATHIMA FARSANA, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR) 3. FATHIMA SANA, AGED 8 YEARS (MINOR) (RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 MINOR DAUGHTERS ARE REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.794 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The appellant herein has suffered a decree directing him to pay amounts to the claimants-his wife and minor children. He has challenged the decree in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already deposited part of the amount due under the impugned decree to satisfy the condition for grant of stay. Part of such amount deposited has been released to the claimants also. 2. The appellant/petitioner now prays that he may be permitted to deposit the entire amount due under the impugned decree and then pray for vacation of the order of attachment. The prayer appears to be absolutely justified. If the entire amount due under the decree is deposited and the trial court is satisfied about such deposit, we find no reason why appropriate orders should not be passed on the prayer for lifting the order of attachment. Mat.Appeal No.794/08 -2- 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the real problem is not that. There are other decrees/orders secured and expected to be secured by the respondents and the respondents want to proceed against the attached property for realisation of the amounts in such claims also. There is dispute between the parties as to whether there is any such proceedings pending. Be that as it may, we need only mention that the court below shall be perfectly at liberty to receive the entire amounts due under the impugned decree. Such amounts shall be kept in deposit such that the principal amount along with interest accrued can later on directed to be released to the successful party in this appeal. The appellant can also make a request before the court below for vacation of the order of attachment after such deposit. Such prayer must be considered by the learned Judge. Needless to say, the respondents/claimants must be given opportunity to advance their contentions. Considering the contentions of both sides, appropriate orders must be passed in such application for vacation of the attachment. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Mat.Appeal No.794/08 -3- steps are afoot to get the property attached in all such other proceedings. If there is order of attachment in such other proceedings, needless to say, the vacation of the order of attachment in this proceedings will not in any way affect such attachments, if any. 5. Subject to the above observations, this petition is allowed in part. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn