IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2287 of 2011(R) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/05/2011 IN EP.12/2010 IN OP.1/2005 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------ P.V.NARAYANA MENON, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. KOCHAMMU, C/O. GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, CHIRAPURATH HOUSE, KALATHODE P.O., OLLUKKARA DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- MALINI MENON, D/O. VALSALAKUMARI, THATTATT HOUSE, VETTIKKAL, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR-680 651. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.1/05 DTD. 20.6.2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.No.1911/2010 in Mat.APPEAL 562/2010 DTD.27.7.2010 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN EP NO.12/2010 IN O.P.NO.1/2005 DTD.27.5.2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1423/2011 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.562/2010 DTD.7.6.2011 OF THIS COURT. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE CSS/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- OP(FC) No.2287 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J This Original Petition is filed challenging an order passed in execution of a decree of the Family Court. 2. The daughter sued the father for maintenance and marriage expenses. The Family Court proceedings were contested by the father on the ground that he had not married the mother of the daughter, but had only fathered two children through her, essentially by cohabiting. His then attempt was to justify the relationship with yet another one, obviously because the relationship with that person had led to proceedings for offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. 3. This Court admitted an appeal against the Family Court's order allowing the claim for recovery and passed a O.P.(FC)no.2287 of 2011 2 conditional order of stay on different conditions including that, within two months from 27.7.2010 the judgment debtor should deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/-. That period was again enlarged by this Court. Yet, the condition was not complied with. 4. The daughter took out personal execution. Going by the impugned order, even before the warrant was issued, the means of the judgment debtor stood proved by evidence. There is no question of the petitioner before us who is the judgment debtor being deprived of any right to liberty, having regard to the fact that there is already a finding on record as to his means. Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere. 5. We clarify that we have not expressed anything that would affect the merits of the appeal against the decree. This clarification is at the request of the counsel for the petitioner since we are otherwise clear in our mind O.P.(FC)no.2287 of 2011 3 that it would never happen. Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/