Dismissed

Jayaprakashan P. v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019WP(C)/288/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging coercive recovery proceedings for maintenance arrears. It held the family court order was not directly impugned and granted a 30-day installment plan with a warning of immediate action upon default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay 50% of quantum within 15 days and balance in next 15 days, failing which immediate recovery action to be taken.

Jayaprakashan P. Vs the Tahsildar — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.288 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAYAPRAKASHAN P. AGED 47 YEARS S/O.GOVINDAN, PONNARATH HOUSE, MALAPPURAM, P.O.MALAPATTAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE TAHSILDAR TALIPARAMBA-670141, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-1.

¶13

3 KAVITHA K.P., AGED 42 YEARS D/O.P.RAGHAVAN, K.P.P.HOUSE, NEAR KAYARALAM MOTTA, P.O.MALAPATTAM, KANNUR-670631.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.MOHANAN VALIYAPURAYIL SMT. PRINCY XAVIER, G.P.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.288 of 2019

JUDGMENT

Writ petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.361/2014 on the files of the Family Court, Kannur. The said M.C. was allowed by the Family Court and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) to his wife i.e., the 3^rd respondent herein. However, no payments were effected consequent to which on the basis of execution applications namely C.M.P.No.1254/2016, C.M.P.No.1506/2017 and C.M.P.No.231/2018, recovery action is launched against the petitioner evident from Exts.P5, P6 and P7 series of notices under Section 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. It is thus challenging the coercive action this writ petition is filed. When this writ petition is admitted to files, stay of the coercive action was granted on 07.01.2019 for a period of two months on condition that an amount of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) is paid within two weeks from the date of the order . I am informed that the said amount is paid.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and perused the pleadings on record.

¶22

In my considered view the order passed by the Family Court directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- is not

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No.288 of 2019

¶25

under challenge before any court. Therefore the execution proceedings initiated and consequential revenue recovery can only be seen as a consequential action to the order passed by the Family Court. In that view of the matter, I do not think petitioner has made out any case justifying interference with the coercive action specified above. However, learned counsel for the petitioner sought indulgence of this Court to make the payments in installments . In my considered view reasonable time can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submitted that more than Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) is due from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount due within 15 days and balance amount within

¶26

another 15 days failing which respondents are directed to take immediate action in accordance with Exts. P5, P6 and P7 Series of

¶27

notices at the earliest possible time.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

SCS

WP(C).No.288 of 2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE FAMILY COU 361/2014.	ORDER DATED 9.10.2015 RT, KANNUR IN MC
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BE BEARING NO.CMP 12	PETITION FILED BY THE FORE THE FAMILY COURT 54/16 IN MC 361/2014.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 361/2014 FILED BY BEFORE THE FAMILY	CMP NO.1506/17 IN MC THE 3RD RESPONDENT COURT, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 361/2014 FILED BY BEFORE THE FAMILY	CMP 231/18 IN MC THE 3RD RESPONDENT COURT, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHM THE 2ND RESPONDEN 1254/16 IN MC 361	DEMAND NOTICE AND ENT OF LAND ISSUED BY T IN RESPECT OF CMP /14.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHM RESPONDENT IN CMP	DEMAND NOTICE AND ENT OF THE 2ND 1506/17 IN MC 361/14.
EXHIBIT P7 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN 361/14.	DEMAND NOTICE OF THE CMP 231/2018 IN MC

Jayaprakashan P. v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakashan P. v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew Joseph Vs Government of Kerala

Sivaprasad, Vs Bennychen.P.Thomas

Tetra Queens Distilleries and Braveries Private Limited Vs the Managing Director, Kerala State Beverages Corporation

Philipose K a Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rohin.T Vs Kmct Law College

Balan.K Vs Balamurali I a S