IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7829 of 2009(R) ------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.197OF 2009 IN O.P. NO.459 OF 2007 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM) PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJINA, D/O. KHALID, SAJINA DALE, KAYYALAKKAL WARD, PALLIMUKKU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.ALTHAF SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SHAJI EASA, S/O. P.M.EASAKUTTY, KAROTTIL, SHEEJA MANZIL, KUTTYTHERUVU, PERUNGALA P.O., KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7829 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The dispute is between spouses. The wife has claimed a total amount of Rs.7,38,000/-. There was an order of conditional attachment. The respondent/husband made a request that the attachment may be lifted accepting the security offered by him. The learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order lifted the attachment accepting the security offered by the respondent/husband. The impugned order was passed on 24.2.2009. 2. The petitioner/wife claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. She has come to this Court by filing this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order. Her contention is that the security offered by the respondent/husband is not sufficient and the Family Court has erred in accepting the security offered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition may be kept pending and the question whether the security offered is sufficient or not may be considered at length. We are not satisfied that such a course is necessary. W.P.(C)NO. 7829/2009 2 4. In response to the specific suggestion made by this Court after hearing the parties, learned counsel for the respondent has offered to deposit a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as additional security. Counsel submits that this is being deposited without prejudice to the right of the respondent to contend that the security already offered is sufficient and adequate. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the controversy can be resolved by directing the respondent herein to deposit a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Family Court, Kollam and the same shall be reckoned as additional security. The amount shall be deposited by the Family Court in a Nationalised Bank such that the principal along with the capital accrued can be released to the successful party, subject to appropriate directions later on. Lifting of the attachment shall take effect only from the date on which the additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is deposited. 5. This Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. 6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 7829/2009 3 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C) NO. 7829/2009 JUDGMENT 7th April, 2009