BY AD v. V.R.GOPU
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Feb 2024
- Bench
- ANU SIVARAMAN C PRATHEEP KUMAR, ADVS, V R GOPU, URMILA M G
Outcome
Dismissed
In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In the absence any specific allegations against the respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P2 original petition, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court so as to call for any interference. In the above…
Judgment
order, the Family Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred this OP.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the impugned order denying the order of attachment is unsustainable as the petitioner has made out a prima facie case against respondents and there is likelihood of passing a OP(FC).19 of 2024 3 decree in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. It was also argued that if the respondents alienate the property, the petitioner will not be in a position to execute the decree that may be passed in her favour.
As per Ext.P2, copy of the Original Petition filed before the Family Court, the main allegations are against the 1st respondent, namely the husband of the petitioner. In paragraph 5 of Ext.P2 it is alleged that 25 sovereigns of gold were sold out and Rs.5 Lakhs pocket money utilised to buy property in the name of the petitioner and 1st respondent. There is a further general averment that the remaining gold ornaments were taken by respondents 1 to 3 and sold the same and used the entire money received out of the sale to meet their pleasures. There is no specific allegation against respondents 2 and 3 anywhere in the petition that she shad entrusted any gold or money to respondents 2 and 3 and that they have misappropriated any such gold or money belonging to her. The alleged date on which and the circumstances under which the respondents 2 and 3 happened to handle the remaining 6 gold ornaments is not disclosed. Even as per Ext.P2, the sale proceeds of the car was utilised by the 1st respondent to purchase another car. It was in the above context that the learned Family Court has declined to attach the schedule property which is exclusively belonging to respondents 2 and 3. At the time of arguments the learned counsel submitted that some pleadings were omitted to OP(FC).19 of 2024 4 be included in the petition and that petitioner wants to file an amendment application. It is left to the petitioner to do so, if she so chooses.
Operative part
In the absence any specific allegations against the respondents 2 and 3 in Ext.P2 original petition, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court so as to call for any interference. In the above circumstances this OP is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge Sd/- C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge Mrcs/1.2.2024 OP(FC).19 of 2024 5 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 19/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KERALA VISWAKARMA SABHA DATED 29.8.2006. : THE TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 176/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 14.11.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR ATTACHMENT I.A.NO.1/2022 IN O.P.NO.176/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 14.11.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE I.A.NO.1/2022 IN O.P.NO.176/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEYYATTINKARA TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN O.P.NO.176/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 29.09.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY DURING THE PERIOD 1.1.2010 TO 5.10.2023 DATED 6.10.2023
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 06 Feb 2024. The bench was ANU SIVARAMAN C PRATHEEP KUMAR, ADVS, V R GOPU, URMILA M G.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.