RENJITH P S Vs. KAVERY S THAMPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the respondents in O.P.No.987/10 pending before the Family Court, Kottayam. That O.P. is filed by the respondent/wife against the petitioners herein who are her husband and mother-in-law. Amounts were claimed from the petitioners herein by the respondent in that O.P. Along with the petition, there was an application for interim attachment. Exts.P2 and P3 orders are orders passed in that I.A. Attachment has been effected. Security has not been furnished. In that context in I.A.No.2150/10 (that is the petition for attachment), it was directed that the petitioners must file their objections, if any, on 11/11/10.

(2.) AT this juncture the petitioners have rushed to this Court. What is their grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Family Court is not strictly following the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules. The Family Court is obliged to refer the parties for counselling. That step is not followed. There is frog leaping of that step and the court has directly gone to the stage of recording evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this procedure adopted by the court below is wrong and erroneous. There may be a direction to the Family Court to follow the procedure prescribed by law and not to proceed to the stage of evidence before an attempt is made for counselling and harmonious settlement of the dispute.

(3.) WITH the above observations, this O.P.(FC) is dismissed.