AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—This Original Petition is filed, seeking a direction to set aside Ext.P10 order passed in I.A.1338/2011 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Briefly put the case of the Petitioners is as follows: Petitioners are Respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.1292/2009 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The first Respondent instituted the said Original Petition, seeking maintenance for herself and the second Respondent. She claimed various amounts allegedly due to her by way of gold ornaments and dowry. She also filed an application for attachment of the properties belonging to the Petitioners. Notice was issued by the Family Court, which was received by the Petitioners on 22.12.2009. They were directed to answer the allegations and furnish security for an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 11.1.2010. The Petitioners 1 and 3 are business men in the city of Thiruvanthapuram and they own various items of properties and the properties stand mortgaged to various financial institutions, from whom financial assistance is obtained. On account of the order of attachment passed, the financial institutions sought return of loans. The Petitioners filed W.P.(C) 636/2010, challenging the encumbrances marked in Ext.P7 by the Sub Registrar. They also filed an application before the Family Court, for lifting the order of attachment. It is the said application, which has been rejected.
We went through the order. Essentially, it is interalia stated that it is true that conditional attachment was made without hearing the Respondent in I.A.2423/09. It is noted that ''A'' relief sought in the Original Petition is for maintenance, both past and future and ''B'' relief is for recovery of gold ornaments. It is stated that if the entire claims are allowed, the amount will be more than Rs. 15,00,000/- and therefore, the claim for attachment obtained for Rs. 10,00,000/-is factually incorrect. Thereafter, it was stated as follows:
The averments in paragraph 3 and 4 would make it clear that the present Petitioners who are the father and mother of the husband are also liable if the petition is allowed. It is also brought out in evidence that the petition for lifting the attachment in respect of the petition D schedule properties are also filed before the Hon''ble High Court. This aspect has not been mentioned either in the petition or in the affidavit filed by the Petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that the Petitioners have not approached before this Court by suppressing material facts and on that count also the Petitioners are not entitled to get the attachment lifted.
We heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would point out that in fact the Petitioners are prepared to furnish security in the form of bank guarantee. We notice that essentially two reasons are given; firstly, that the Petitioners 2 and 3 are father and mother of the husband of the first Respondent and are also liable if the petition is allowed. Secondly, it is stated that filing of the application to lift attachment of ''D'' schedule property was not mentioned in the petition or affidavit.
It is true that an Original Petition was filed challenging the endorsement about the attachment. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that it is not really a material fact and we must notice that in this case, Petitioners are prepared to furnish proper security to the satisfaction of the court. If that be so, we feel that the entire matter should be reconsidered. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P10 and direct the Family Court to take up I.A.1338/2011 for consideration and pass orders on the same. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 7.7.2011 and the Family Court will consider the case and pass orders within a period of two weeks from 7.7.2011 in I.A.1338/2011.
The Original Petition (Family Court) is disposed of as above.