VIMALA Vs. ARAMUGHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Tirur, whereby, the request of the respondent - her estranged husband, to lift the attachment of certain portions of his property, has been allowed, finding that its total value will be much more than the claimed amount.

(2.) Sri.Sunil V.Mohammed - learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court had erroneously accepted the value of the property determined by the Kerala Gramin Bank, at the time when a loan was sought to be taken against it. He argued that this value is totally unreasonable and exorbitant; and that this is possibly because, the valuation of the property was done by a private valuer. He argued that, in any event, without the said valuer being called as a witness and without him having been examined, the Trial Court could not have accepted the value fixed by him. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be set aside.

(3.) In response, Sri.Jamshid Hafiz - learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that this Original Petition is only a method by the petitioner - wife to harass the respondent - husband and force him to untenable settlement. He argued that the learned Trial Court has correctly found that the valuation report by a valuer attached to the Kerala Gramin Bank shows that there are 2 extents of property, namely 9 cents and 11.42 cents; and that the value of the latter is ?58,82,150/-. He added that, in fact, the value of this property is perhaps even higher because it has a building thereon; but that the petitioner is attempting to proceed against the other 9 cents also, for reasons that are confutative. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P10 be left uninterdicted.