IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2078 of 2010(R) ------------------------------------- OP.727/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 41 MAMPALLIKUNNEL, ARUVITHURA PO, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENaCHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THRESSIAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 71, W/O.JOSEPH, MAMPALLIKUNNEL, ARUVITHURA PO, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SOPHIYAMMA JACOB, AGED 40, D/O.JACOB, OZHUKAKANDATHIL HOUSE, ONAMTHURRTHU VILLAGE, ONAMTHURUTHU KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.R.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2078 of 2010(R) -2- APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OP NO.727/2008 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANNOOR. EXT.P2..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECREE IN OP.NO.727/2008 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANNOOR. EXT.P3..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DECREE DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE. EXT.P4..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 14.1.2009. EXT.P5..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IA.NO.1990/2008 IN O.P.NO.727/2008. EXT.P6..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EP.NO.55/2009 IN OP.NO.727/2008. EXT.P7.. TRUE PHOTOST COPY OF IA.NO.1719/2009 SEEKING TO LIFT THE ATTACHMENT. EXT.P8..TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.8.2009 PASSED IN IA.NO.1719/2009. K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2078 of 2010-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-- “i). to call for the records leading to Ext.P7 application and Ext.P8 order, examine the same and quash the same by holding Ext.P8 as illegal and further holding the same as the result of jurisdictional error and tainted with legal perversity, if necessary by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction. ii). to issue appropriate orders directing lifting of attachment as sought for in Ext.P7 application and further direct the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to communicate the lifting of attachment in respect of the property attached through Ext.P5 application in relation to property having an extent of 4.83 ares comprised in Re.Sy.No.318/6, and 318/7 (old Sy.No.1271/1-1, 1-2, 1-3) of Kondoor village with building situated thereon which property belongs to the 2nd petitioner and which attachment was effected W.P.C No.2078/2010 -2- through Ext.P5 application.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:-- Ist petitioner married the respondent. In the wedlock a baby girl was born. There were proceedings before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumannur. According to the petitioners, the matter was settled and Ext.P2 is the order on compromise. It is stated that the amount is received in final settlement. Divorce under Section 10 A of the Indian Divorce Act by mutual consent has been granted. It is also stated that there is another agreement for the upbringing of the child as borne out by Ext.P4. There is an attachment. It is submitted that even though there is a compromise, attachment was allowed to continue by an inadvertent mistake. In view of the subsequent development petitioner filed application to lift the attachment. That application has been closed by Ext.P8. Ext.P8 reads as follows: “Both parties present. It is submitted that terms of compromise not complied with. Hence this petition also closed.” 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. After perusing the W.P.C No.2078/2010 -3- order we feel that the application is filed for lifting the attachment where the petitioner apparently has made reference of developments. The Family Court ought to have considered the same and passed a reasoned order. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 is set aside and the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor will consider Ext.P7 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS