IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35840 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.636/2009 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL SALAM, AGED 70 YEARS, VAHID MANZIL, ALAMKODU P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JASEENA BEEGAM, D/O.K.O.KHALID SETTU, THATTAMALACHERI, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.35840 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of December 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner herein is a respondent in O.P.No.636/2009 pending before the Family Court, Kollam. That proceedings have been initiated by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner against the petitioner (2nd respondent) and his son, (the 1st respondent). Interim attachment prior to judgment was prayed for and such interim order of attachment has already been passed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already appeared before the Family Court and has filed an application to get the attachment lifted. The court below is seized of the matter. Orders have not been passed. 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has rushed to this court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. What is his grievance? What relief does he expect from this court? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has not attempted for a conciliated settlement of the dispute before orders were passed in the order of W.P.C No.35840/09 2 attachment. We are unable to agree as a rule that the Family Court must take up petitions for attachment for consideration only after attempts for conciliation failed. That will be giving an opportunity for recalcitrant litigants to transfer the property before they face the order of attachment. That contention cannot hence be accepted. 3. It is next contended that the petitioner/father-in-law is in no way answerable for the claim of the daughter-in-law and therefore his property should not have been attached. This evidently is a contention which must be raised before the court below. The same has already been raised in the counter affidavit. The court below will have to consider the same. Thirdly it is complained that the said objections have not been considered so far. Expeditious considerations may be directed in I.A.No.1538/2009, it is prayed. 4. We find merit in that request. The petitioner can certainty request the court below to take up his application for lifting of the attachment out of turn and expeditiously for consideration. We have no reason to assume that the learned Judge of the Family Court will not consider such prayer expeditiously. The court below must so consider the prayer for lifting of the attachment expeditiously. W.P.C No.35840/09 3 5. With the observation that the court below must consider the petitioner's objection and prayer for lifting of the attachment expeditiously, this writ petition is dismissed. 6. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner who can produce the same in the application to be made before the court below for an expeditious out of turn disposal of his objection. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C No.35840/09 4 W.P.C No.35840/09 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009