IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36247 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1339/08 IN OS.119/1999 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- R.VIJAYAN, KOTTUVILA VEEDU, VALLIKKADAVU, NEERAMANKADAVU.P.O, VIA MITHIRMALA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M.K.LALANA KUMARI, MELEVILA VEEDU, POOVATHOOR, NIRAMANKADAVU.P.O, MITHRUMMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAJINI, D/O.LALANA KUMARI(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER GUARDIAN M.K.LALANA KUMARI, MELEVILA VEEDU, POOVATHOOR, NIRAMANKADAVU.P.O, MITHRUMMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has disputes with his wife proper as also with the 1st respondent, who claims to be his wife. There are several proceedings between the petitioner on the one hand and his wife on the other. There are also proceedings between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, the alleged wife and the alleged daughter of the petitioner. It is unnecessary to advert to all the details of the litigation in this judgment. 2. O.P.No.598 of 2007 has been filed by the 2nd respondent herein for amounts due from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent in that O.P claims that the petitioner herein is her father and is consequently liable to make payment of amounts to her. That O.P.No.598 of 2007 was received on file. Long later I.A.No.2448 of 2008 was filed by the 1st respondent herein for an order of attachment of an item of property belonging to the petitioner and his mother. Attachment was ordered. W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 2 3. In the meantime in M.C.No.26 of 2005 the Family Court had held that the petitioner is the father of the 2nd respondent. That order is challenged and the challenge is pending before this Court as R.P.F.C No.24 of 2007. 4. A request was made that O.P.No.598 of 2007 may be stayed pending disposal of the R.P.F.C. That prayer has been allowed. The matter stands stayed. 5. According to the petitioner, he wants to dispose of the property under attachment and has already transferred his title over the property under Ext.P8 document. In Ext.P8 there are recitals to show that provision has been made to satisfy the claim for which attachment has been ordered. 6. What then is the grievance of the petitioner now? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to provide security for the entire claim in O.P.No.598 of 2007 to the satisfaction of the court below. But he is unable to move the Court to accept such security and vacate the order of attachment because O.P.No.598 of 2007 stands stayed. 7. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 3 court below is directed to consider the petitioner's application for lifting the order of attachment notwithstanding the order of stay in O.P.No.598 of 2007. 8. To us, the said request appears to be absolutely reasonable. O.P.No.598 of 2007 is stayed because of the pendency of R.P.F.C No.24 of 2007. But that pendency should not deter the court from considering the application for lifting of the attachment ordered as per order in I.A.No.2448 of 2008. If the petitioner is willing to offer adequate security, the Family Court will definitely have to consider the prayer for lifting the attachment ordered as per order in I.A.No.2448 of 2008 notwithstanding the order of stay in O.P.NO.598 of 2007. 9. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to order notice to the respondents in this Writ Petition. We need only direct the Family Court to consider the petitioner's application for lifting the order of attachment in I.A.No.2448 of 2009 on merits and in accordance with law if an application to that effect is filed by the petitioner, notwithstanding the order of stay in O.P.598/07.. 10. This Writ Petition is allowed in part to the above extent. W.P(C) No.36247 of 2009 4 11. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner who shall produce the same before the Family Court along with his application to lift the judgment ordered in I.A.No.2448 of 2008 in O.P.No.598 of 2007. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-