IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1282 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------- OP.525/2008 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER (S): ----------------------- THAYYIL MUHAMMED BUKHARI, S/O. SAIDALVI HAJI, THAYYIL HOUSE, ATHAVANAD AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SAJEERA.P., D/O. P.MUHAMMED, GREEN MAHAL, KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, POST KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(FC) No.1282 of 2011-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P7 order and prays that it may be found that the security offered by the petitioner is in time. 2. Petitioner is the Ist respondent in OP 525/2008 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondent is his wife. The OP filed by the respondent was decreed exparte. Petitioner filed petition to set aside the exparte orders which was allowed on terms. Petitioner filed Mat.Appeal 518/2009 and RP (FC) 189/2009 against the orders passed in the OP and MC respectively. By Ext.P1 the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000/- as cost and further a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as security and the entire balance amount due under the exparte decree to the satisfaction of the Family Court within a period of sixty days from the date of Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P2 is the order in RPFC. Petitioner challenged the above orders before the Apex Court. The Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP, but, granted 8 weeks' time to deposit the amount as per Ext.P3 order. It is stated that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount directed in Ext.P1 judgment which was extended by Ext.P3 order OPFC 1282/2011 -2- and also the amount due as per Ext.P2 order within the time as evidenced by Ext.P4 receipt, but he could not furnish the security for the balance amount in time as per the direction. The property belonging to his father who is the 2nd respondent in the OP was attached. The petitioner could not offer the security in time for certain reasons, it is stated. His case is that his father was under treatment. Petitioner produced documents of the property to accept the security offered on 9.2.2011. Ext.P6 is the statement. However, the Family Court rejected the security offered by the petitioner finding that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed by the High Court as extended by the Apex Court. It is challenging the said order, petitioner is before us. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4. This is a petition under Article 227 and the question before us is whether there is any jurisdictional error or illegality committed by the Family Court. There is no dispute that this Court had fixed a time to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and to furnish security. Though the petitioner has deposited the amount he has not been able to furnish security. It may be true that the property was attached and the documents which he offered as security relates to the same property, but, the question before us OPFC 1282/2011 -3- is whether the Family Court has committed any illegality in finding that the petitioner has not offered security in time. On facts this finding of the Family Court is unassailable that within the time provided by the Court the petitioner has not been able to offer the property as security by offering the documents relating to the property which had been attached. Therefore, we see absolutely no error in the finding of the Family Court that the offer of the petitioner of the property which is attached as security is beyond time. It is also brought to our notice that petitioner had moved the High Court on the appellate side seeking extension but the same was also dismissed. Therefore, we see no jurisdictional error. The original petition fails and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS