Abdulla vs Rinsha
2022 Latest Caselaw 3910 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                               &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
  TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                   OP (FC) NO. 186 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MP 1263/2021 OF FAMILY
                       COURT,THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:

          ABDULLA, AGED 67 YEARS,
          KANATHEL HOUSE, MARANCHERY P.O,
          VADAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM,
          PIN - 679581.
          BY ADV ARJUN S.



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     RINSHA, AGED 25 YEARS,
          VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          PUNNAYOORKULAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD,
          THRISSUR, PIN - 679561.
    2     MUHAMED RASHID, AGED 34 YEARS,
          HOUSE NO.15/309, AVP ROAD,
          KANJIKODE EAST, PALAKKAD,
          PIN - 678621.




THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC) No.186/2022              2




                             JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This original petition was filed seeking the

following reliefs:

1. To call for the records of MP (Exe) No.1263/2021 in M.C.No.604/2019 before the Hon'ble Family Court, Thrissur, and pass orders quashing Annexure-A notice to the petitioner.

2. Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

2. According to the petitioner, the property sought

to be attached in the execution for maintenance due from

the second respondent belongs to him. Apparently, the

Deputy Tahsildar, Ponnani Taluk, issued a notice before

attachment pursuant to the order from the Family Court.

In the light of the claim made by the petitioner, we

give an opportunity to him to raise an objection to the

proceedings initiated against the property. If the

petitioner is also given liberty to raise an objection

before the Tahsildar as against the proceedings against

the property. The Family Court as well as the Tahsildar

shall not proceed until the order based on the objection

is passed by the Family Court and the Tahsildar. The

petitioner shall raise the objection before the Family

Court as well as the Tahsildar within two weeks

thereafter. The Family Court shall conclude the

proceedings within a further period of four weeks. Till

then, all coercive steps pursuant to Annexure-A shall be

kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall serve a copy of

this judgment to the counsel appearing for the first

respondent before the Family Court and also produce a copy

of this judgment before the Family Court.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ln

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 186/2022

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR- PONNANI IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 16.03.2022. ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1404/96 OF SRO, PONNANI DTD. 08.05.1996. ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF LAND TAX PAID BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 23.10.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2021-2022.