THAYYIL MUHAMMED BUKHARI Vs. SAJEERA P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext.P7 order and prays that it may be found that the security offered by the petitioner is in time.

(2.) PETITIONER is the Ist respondent in OP 525/2008 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondent is his wife. The OP filed by the respondent was decreed exparte. PETITIONER filed petition to set aside the exparte orders which was allowed on terms. PETITIONER filed Mat.Appeal 518/2009 and RP (FC) 189/2009 against the orders passed in the OP and MC respectively. By Ext.P1 the Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000/- as cost and further a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as security and the entire balance amount due under the exparte decree to the satisfaction of the Family Court within a period of sixty days from the date of Ext.P1 judgment. Ext.P2 is the order in RPFC. PETITIONER challenged the above orders before the Apex Court. The Apex Court was pleased to dismiss the SLP, but, granted 8 weeks' time to deposit the amount as per Ext.P3 order. It is stated that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount directed in Ext.P1 judgment which was extended by Ext.P3 order and also the amount due as per Ext.P2 order within the time as evidenced by Ext.P4 receipt, but he could not furnish the security for the balance amount in time as per the direction. The property belonging to his father who is the 2nd respondent in the OP was attached. The petitioner could not offer the security in time for certain reasons, it is stated. His case is that his father was under treatment. PETITIONER produced documents of the property to accept the security offered on 9.2.2011. Ext.P6 is the statement. However, the Family Court rejected the security offered by the petitioner finding that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions imposed by the High Court as extended by the Apex Court. It is challenging the said order, petitioner is before us.