IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR SATURDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2010 / 10TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2942 of 2010(O) ------------------------- I.A. NO. 1769/2009 IN AS.374/2009 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 33, D/O.APPUKKUTTAN, CHERPPATTA, CHERAYA AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SATHYABHAMA, AGED 37, D/O.M.K.RAVINDRAN, KERALASSERY AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. JISHA, AGED 19, D/O.SATHYABHAMA, KERALASSERY AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SANKAR, AGED 14, D/O.SATHYABHAMA, KERALASSERY AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN - SATHYABHAMA. 4. M.K.RAVINDRAN, S/O.LATE SANKARA GUPTHAN, AGED 43, KIZHAKKUPURATH, MANNATTIL, THRIPOLAMUDA, PERINGODE AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P. ( C) 2919/2010 ON 30/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. ( C) Nos. 2942 of 2010 and 2919 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 30-01-2010 JUDGMENT The common Writ Petitioner was the claimant in E.A. 463 of 2000 in E.P. No. 267 of 1999 in O.S. 258 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad and E.A. 464 of 2000 in E.P. 81 of 2000 in the very same suit. The said suit was filed by the common first respondent herein (Sathyabhama) and her children (who are the estranged wife and children of the 4th respondent Ravindran) claiming maintenance. The suit was decreed on July 1998. As per decree , the total monthly liability of the 4th respondent herein was Rs. 3,500/- per month from the date of suit. Since the amounts decreed were not paid by the petitioner, the first respondent Sathyabhama levied execution. There weres three execution petitions Nos. 19/2009, 267/1999 and 81 of 2000 of the petitioner is concerned with the latter two E.Ps. Alleging that the property proceeded against in the aforesaid two E.Ps was transferred by the 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner in the year 1998 and that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) Nos. 2942 & 2919 of 2010 -:2:- the aforementioned claim petitions before the Executing Court which as per Ext.P4 common order dismissed the claim petitions with costs. Aggrieved by those orders the petitioner has preferred appeals before the District Court, Palakkad as A.S. Nos. 373 and 374 of 2009. She sought for a stay of further proceedings in the EPs. As per the orders produced as Ext.P7 in these Writ Petitions, the lower appellate Court granted a stay on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs. 25,000/- and furnish security for the due performance of the decree amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within one month. It is these orders which are assailed in these Writ Petitions. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the liability , if any, on the property and that the trial court erred in rejecting her claim and the lower appellate Court also was not right in imposing such an onerous condition on her instead of directing her to furnish security for the E.P. amounts. 3. I cannot agree with the above submissions. The Execution Petition No. 267 of 1999 pertains to a claim for maintenance for nine months and E.P. 81 of 2000 pertains to the claim for maintenance for five months. By the Court directing W.P.(C) Nos. 2942 & 2919 of 2010 -:3:- the petitioner to furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court, the first respondent/plaintiff does not get any amount in liquid cash to tide over the vagrancy and starvation. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for the amount covered by the E.P. for the satisfaction of the trial Court. The Executing Court was not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that she is a bona fide transferee for value without notice. According to the Ist respondent (Sathyabhama) the petitioner herein is the concubine of the 4th respondent (Ravindran). The matter will have to be considered in the appeals filed by her. I, therefore, modify Ext.P7 order and direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in each of the cases within one month from today and to furnish security for the balance amount covered by the two EPs within one month from today. Ext.P7 orders will stand modified as above. These Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) W.P.(C) Nos. 2942 & 2919 of 2010 -:4:- ani.