Partly allowed

Surendran, v. Navya K.S

Kerala HC8 Apr 2024OP (FC)/191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Family Court rejected a power-of-attorney holder's offer to substitute immovable property security for cash attached before judgment, holding him not arrayed as a party. The High Court quashed that order and directed the Family Court to reconsider the application after verifying the property suffices to cover the claim.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P6 quashed; Family Court directed to reconsider acceptance of immovable property security within four weeks.

Surendran, Vs Navya K.S — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
&

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
MONDAY,THE8THDAYOFAPRIL2024/19THCHAITHRA,1946
OP(FC)NO.191OF2024

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

SURENDRAN,
AGED71YEARS

¶5

S/OKARUNAKARAN,EDAYILAZHIKATHUVEEDU,KADAPPAKKADANAGAR-33,
KADAPPAKKADAP.O,KOLLAM,PIN-691008,PIN-691008

¶6

BYADVS.
V.PREMCHAND
HALIYAT.P.
MAHADEVM.J.

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

NAVYAK.S,
AGED32YEARS
D/OSUBHAGARAJ,SHEELAFLAT,PARAVUR,POOTHAKKULAMP.O,
KOLLAM,,PIN-691302

¶9

BYADVS.
T.C.GOVINDASWAMY
SHINES.(K/1138/2018)
KALAT.GOPI(K/964/2010)

¶10

THISOP(FAMILYCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON08.04.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

OP (FC) No.191 of 2024

JUDGMENT

P.M. Manoj, J.

This Original Petition is preferred by the 2^nd respondent in O.P. No.156 of 2022 before the Family Court, Kollam. The 1^st respondent in the main petition is the husband and the 3^rd respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner therein. The Original Petition is preferred inter alia claiming to recover 103 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value.

¶16

Sri. V. Premchand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the above Original Petition the Family Court, based on an application filed by the respondent has issued Ext.P3 order ordering the attachment before judgment of various accounts maintained by the 1st respondent, who is the son of the petitioner herein. He contends that he has preferred I.A. No.4/2023 in O.P. No.156/2022 for lifting the attachment in his capacity as the power of attorney holder of the 1^st respondent by offering to furnish immovable property security in lieu of cash security. The petitioner states that the property offered will easily cover the petition claim. The Family Court has however rejected the request made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not arrayed as a party in the application and he was never asked to furnish security. His request was accordingly rejected as not maintainable by Exhibit P6 order.

¶17

In view of the order that we propose to pass, notice to the party

¶18

OP (FC) No.191 of 2024

¶19

¶20

respondent is dispensed with.

¶21

We find that the petitioner is the 2nd respondent in the main petition. He is stated to be the power of attorney holder of his son, the 1st respondent in the main petition. None of the provisions of the Code creates an embargo for the petitioner to furnish security. Merely because the petitioner was not arrayed as a party in the application is no reason not to accept the

¶22

immovable property security accepted by the petitioner. We are in the said circumstances inclined to interfere.

¶23

In the result, Exhibit P6 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the Family Court to reconsider the application to accept the immovable property security offered by the petitioner after ensuring that the property offered is sufficient to satisfy the petition claim amount. A decision shall be taken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

Sd/-

P.M.MANOJ

JUDGE

ncd

OP (FC) No.191 of 2024

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 191/2024

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶35

Exhibit-P1ATRUECOPYOFTHEORIGINALPETITIONNO.156/2022BEFORETHE
FAMILYCOURT,KOLLAMDATED02.04.2022

¶36

Exhibit-P2

¶37

ATRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONINI.A.NO.1/2022IN
O.P.NO.156/2022DATED02.04.2022FILEDBYTHERESPONDENT

¶38

Exhibit-P3ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED04.04.2022INIA1/2022IN
O.P.NO.156/2022BEFORETHEFAMILYCOURT,KOLLAM

¶39

Exhibit-P4ATRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED15.09.2023INIANO.
4/2023INOP156/2022BYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHEFAMILY
COURT,KOLLAM

¶40

Exhibit-P5ATRUECOPYOFTHEOBJECTIONDATED15.11.2023INIANO.
4/2023INOP156/2022BEFORETHEFAMILYCOURT,KOLLAM,
FILEDBYTHERESPONDENT

¶41

Exhibit-P6

¶42

ATRUECOPYOFTHECOMMONORDERDATED14.12.2023PASSEDBY
THEFAMILYCOURT,KOLLAM,INI.A.NO.4/2023IN
O.P.NO.156/2022BEFORETHEFAMILYCOURT,KOLLAM

Surendran, v. Navya K.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran, v. Navya K.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheeja Sreekumar Vs Sheeja Krishnan

Biju Sebastian @ Joseph Vs Elizabeth @ Linda Biju

Elizabeth @ Linda Vs Biju Sebastian @ Joseph

Nimmy Mohanan Vs Sudeesh. P.P

Bindu Venugopal Vs State of Kerala

John Brito Vs Printu Antony