IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36633 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2009 IN EP.116/2008 IN OP.366/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 33, S/O.KAMBRAN KUNHEETHU HAJI, K.K.HOUSE, P.O.KUTTOOR NORTH, A.R.NAGAR, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. NADIYA, AGED 26, D/O.ERAMBATHIL ALAVI, KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PUKAYOOR P.O., OLAKKARA. 2. FATHIMA SHERIN, (MINOR) AGED 5, D/O.NADIYA, KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PUKAYOOR P.O., OLAKKARA, REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, NADIYA, AGED 26, D/O.ERAMBATHIL ALAVI, KAKKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PUKAYOOR P.O., OLAKKARA. ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE FOR R1-2 SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC36633/09 - 2 - APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS DT.6.8.2009. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.19.9.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.7.1.08 IN O.P.NO.366/07 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT,MALAPPURAM. EXT.R1(B) - TRUE COPY OF WEDDING INVITATION CARD. - TRUE COPY- P.S.TO JUDGE. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C)No.36633 of 2009-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The order put in execution against the writ petitioner is one passed in connection with the requirement of his child's treatment, including a coronary surgery. The child has fortunately survived. The amount has to be met. The petitioner faced an earlier order for arrest. The impugned order is solely an order re-issuing a warrant, obviously because the warrant earlier issued, was not appropriately executed. Therefore, the plea against the first order does not appeal to us. The petitioner has, however, satisfied 1/6th of the decree debt following the interim order passed in this case. We, therefore, take this as an appropriate case where the WPC36633/09 -: 2 :- petitioner would be given some more time to satisfy the decree and avert arrest. We confirm the impugned order and adjourn the execution petition before the court below by three months and 15 days to consider issuance of warrant, if it becomes necessary. This will be on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire remaining decree debt in three monthly equal instalments payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from March, 2010. Notwithstanding this judgment, if there is default in paying any of the instalments, the court below will be within jurisdiction to advance the hearing of the execution petition on request by the decree holder. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/