IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 41 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.218/07 IN EP.2/02 IN OS.54/1997 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM K.JOSEPH, KAVUMKAL VEEDU, KEEZHVAIPUR, MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS ----------------------------------------------- 1. ANU SARA JOSEPH, 94, WOLKOFF LANE, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK. 2. JAISON K.JOSEPH, 94, WOLFOFF LANE, STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK (BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.V.VARGHESE, PARAPPILLIL HOUSE, PUDUSSERI, KOLLOOPPARA). THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 116/08 IN CRP 41/08 DISMISSED 15.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 41 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla, in EA 218/07 in EP 2/02 in OS 54/97. The unfortunate litigation is between the father and children. The father, who is the revision petitioner, is directed to pay the past maintenance as well as future maintenance. The father had already paid the amount due as past maintenance. It was submitted that for the future maintenance also, there must be some security and therefore the children wanted to see that the property, which is attached, is kept in abeyance. It may not be a correct approach to have the property under attachment for ever. I am informed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that both the children are employed abroad and they are well settled in life. Whatever it may be, when there is a liability to maintain, it has to be done by the father. Now both the children have attained majority and the daughter is nearing the marriage age and the son is to get employment sooner or faster. Therefore, the court below felt that there must be some security for the next three years and directed C.R.P. NO.41/08 2 the father to deposit the maintenance due in future. Thereafter the court passed an order that on compliance with the condition, attachment can be lifted. It is against that decision the civil revision petition is filed. 2. When the learned counsel submitted on facts, I ascertained from him whether he will be in a position to deposit the amount so that it can be kept as a security in the court deposit and whenever the amount is due, it can be paid to the children. Now I am informed that the said amount is also deposited. 3. I make it clear that the amount in deposit can be disbursed in favour of the children as and when the amount applied for becomes due as per the order. The amount shall not be released before its due date. With these modifications, the civil revision petition is disposed of and as the amount is deposited, the attachment be lifted. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. NO.41/08 3