Kerala High Court
Sasikumar N vs Ambilikrishnan @ Ambili on 23 June, 2021
Mat.Appeal No.311/2020 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943
IA.NO.2/2020 IN MAT.APPEAL NO. 311 OF 2020
OP 113/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
1. SASIKUMAR N. AGED 48 YEARS S/O. LATE NANU AND BHAVANIAMMA,
CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, KOTTANADU P. O., KOTTANADU MURI, PERUMPETTY
VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK AND NOW RESIDING AT KOVANCHIRA
KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, THADIYOOR P. O., THADIYOOR KADAYOOR, AYROOR
VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 545., REP. BY
HIS P.A. HOLDER SUBHADRA @ SINDHU, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. JAYADEV,
THOPPIL MALAYIL HOUSE, VENNIKULAM P. O., VALAANKARA, PURAMATTOM
VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 544.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. AMBILIKRISHNAN @ AMBILI AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. RAMAKRISHNAN @ C. R.
KRISHNAN & SANTHAMMA, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE, KOTTANADU P. O.,
KOTTANADU MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 615.
2. C. R. KRISHNAN, AGED 71 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, CHARIVUKALAYIL HOUSE,
KOTTANADU P. O., KOTTANADU MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 615.
3. SANTHAMMA AGED 68 YEARS W/O. C. R. KRISHNAN, CHARIVUKALAYIL
HOUSE, KOTTANADU P. O., KOTTANADU MURI, PERUMPETTY VILLAGE,
MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 615.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to allow
attachment before judgment of the schedule of property accompanied
herewith for the amount claimed in O.P.No.113/2014, which is the
subject matter of this appeal, or to revive the attachment before
judgment as per order dated 23.04.2014 in IA No.502/2014 in OP
No.113/2014, till the disposal of the captioned Matrimonial Appeal
Mat.Appeal No.311/2020 2/2
in the interest of Justice.
This Application coming on for orders, upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon
hearing the arguments of M/S.MANU RAMACHANDRAN, M.KIRANLAL,
R.RAJESH (VARKALA),T.S.SARATH, and SAMEER M NAIR, Advocates for
the applicants, the court passed the following:
ORDER
This is an application for attachment before judgment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that there was
a judjment throughout till the disposal of the case before the Family
Court. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer for
attachment. Having considered the factual circumstances, we are of
the view that respondent shall not transfer or alienate the property
in the attachment schedule. However in case the 1st respondent
requires to raise money for the treatment of her father,the property
can be encumbered with leave of the court.
Post on 8/7/2021 along with connected cases.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
23-06-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
