Kerala High Court
Praveen V.P vs Reshmi L.R on 2 August, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
(ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 IN I.A.NO.4060/2021 IN OP NO.2001 OF 2021
OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
PRAVEEN V.P., AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.V.K. PRADEEP, VETTIYAKKAL HOUSE,
ALUVA THOTTUMUGAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683105.
BY ADVS.
BABU S. NAIR
SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 IN I.A.:
1 RESHMI L.R., AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.K. RAVINDRAN, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.10B,
ASSET SYNERGY HEIGHTS, THOPPIL, KANNANKULANGARA,
THRIPPUNITHURA P.O. THEKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE,
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301.
2 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,
TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
LAYAM C BLOCK, 259/51, STATUE JUNCTION,
SANSKRIT COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAKAKOM, THRIPPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, MUTHOOT FINCORP LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE, MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695039.
4 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NADAMEL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,
NO.123, N. FORT ROAD, VADAKEKKOTTA, KOTTAKAKAM,
THRIPPUNITHURA, KOCHI, PIN - 682301.
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
-2-
5 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ESAF BANK, EAST FORT GATE,
KANNANKULANGARA, THRIPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301.
6 THE BRANCH MANAGER
IDBI BANK, THRIPPUNITHURA BRANCH,
HILL PALACE ROAD, NEAR COCHIN ARYA VYDYASALA,
EAST FORT JUNCTION, THRIPPUNITHURA,
PIN - 682301.
BY ADVS.
SAJU S
SALIL NARAYANAN K.A.
JITHIN SAJI ISAAC
KIRAN M.S.
A.V.SAJAN(K/384/2001)
ANJANADEVI.G(K/269/2014)
SWETHA.S.(K/000571/2022)
NAINA FAHIMATH M.S.(K/001521/2023)
MANJU V.(K/3188/1999)
K.J.SAJI ISAAC(S-82)
ELIZABETH VARKEY(E-25)
AJEESH EMMANUEL(K/109/2012)
SHAMSUDEEN O.K.(K/000687/2017)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
We propose to be very brief in our
observations in this judgment because, we notice
that the parties may have other efficacious
alternative remedies available to them.
2. The petitioner, represented by
Smt.Smitha Babu - learned counsel, argues that
Ext.P4 order by the learned Family Court,
Ernakulam, was unnecessary because, it has
injuncted the various respondents - Financial
Institutions from allowing her client to operate
his accounts with them only to half of its
proceeds, without noticing that a property worth
much more has already been attached by it
earlier, on the application of the 1st respondent
- Wife.
3. Smt.Smitha Babu vehemently asserted that
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
the learned Family Court was in error in having
issued Ext.P4 because, even when the wife
maintains that the proceeds of the accounts in
question belong to her, his client has placed on
record several materials to establish to the
contrary; and that her intention is only to
harass to make him accede to certain untenable
demands and settlement. She then submitted that
her client was always willing to offer security
for the claim made by the petitioner in the
Original Petition in question; but that, this
was not even considered by the learned Family
Court, and that it, nevertheless, proceeded to
issue Ext.P4, injuncting the various Financial
Institutions before it, from allowing him to
operate the accounts to more than half of its
proceeds. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P4 be
set aside.
4. Sri.S.Saju - learned counsel for the 1st
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
respondent, however, submitted that Ext.P4 is an
order issued by the Trial Court noticing that
his client has made a claim over the entire
proceeds in the account, but granting injunction
against the Financial Institutions only to half
of it. He added that, if the petitioner wanted
to furnish security for the amounts covered by
the said order, he could have easily moved the
said Court itself; and that there was no reason
for him to have approached this Court, impugning
Ext.P4.
5. Sri.Salil Narayanan K.A. - learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent; Sri.K.J.Saji
Issac for respondent No.5 and Sri.M.S.Kiran for
respondent No.6, submitted that their clients
have no interest in the controversy, being only
Financial Institutions; and that they will abide
by any directions to be issued by this Court, or
by the learned Family Court.
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
6. We have examined Ext.P4, on the
touchstone of the above rival submissions.
7. The learned Family Court has issued the
impugned order, noticing the claim of the 1 st
respondent - wife, that she is entitled to full,
or at least half, of the proceeds of the
accounts maintained by the petitioner, with the
various respondents - Financial Institutions.
8. Even though the petitioner filed
objections, saying that he had already made
fiscal arrangements for the wife in the past and
had transferred properties and other assets in
her name, they remain without being proved at
this moment because, the trial is yet to begin.
Obviously, therefore, the learned Family Court
could not have acted upon the assertions of
either of the parties as at present; and could
have only proceeded to decide the matter as is
required at the stage of Order 39 Rule 1 of the
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
Civil Procedure Code, evaluating the balance of
convenience between the parties.
9. That being said, since Smt.Smitha Babu
now says that the half proceeds in the various
accounts involved in this case is only about
Rs.30 lakhs and that her client is willing to
furnish security for the same, obviously, his
liberty to seek such a relief before the learned
Family Court is fully open. We see no reason why
the petitioner should have approached this Court
for that purpose through this Original Petition.
10. Presumably being aware of the mind of
this Court as afore, Smt.Smitha Babu submitted
that her client intends to move the learned
Family Court appropriately and to seek that the
injunction issued against the respondents -
Financial Institutions, through Ext.P4, be
vacated because, the 1st respondent can only seek
her claim to be fully secured - which he is
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
willing to do, furnishing proper security. She
added that, in fact, her client's property -
which already stands attached, is much more
valuable than the claim in the Original Petition
in which such orders have been issued; and that
he will be able to offer the same as a security
for this claim also, for which, she sought
liberty.
11. We do not propose to speak on the afore
plea of Smt.Smitha Babu because, every liberty
that may be available to the parties in law is
certainly open to them, including to offer the
attached property as security, to the
satisfaction of the learned Family Court,
subject to its value being properly assessed as
per law.
With the afore clarification, we close this
Original Petition; however, directing the
learned Family Court, Ernakulam, to take up any
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
application that may be filed by the petitioner
on the afore lines and dispose it of without any
avoidable delay, after affording necessary
opportunities to both sides.
We clarify that we have not entered into the
merits of the rival contentions and that they
are all left open; and that it is for the
learned Family Court to decide the procedure to
be followed, if any security is to be offered
before it by the petitioner.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
OP (FC) NO. 162 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 162/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION
NO.2001/2021 FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED, 3-9-2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4060/2021 IN
O.P.NO.2001/2021 FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED, 14-9-2021
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN
O.P.NO.2001/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED, 22-8-2022
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 17-1-
2023 IN I.A.NO.4060/2021 IN
O.P.NO.2001/2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT ORDER
ALONG WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED IN I.A.NO.3901/2021 IN
O.P.NO.2001/2021 DATED, 10-9-2021
