Important points:
The court while considering the claim made under the proviso to Section 60 CPC, should be more cautious enough to evaluate the evidence as intended by the parliament under the said provision. In such circumstances, every court shall have the duty to uphold the exceptions carved out under the main provision and thereby protect the object of the law maker.

JUDGMENT :

Annie John, J.

The petitioner is the petitioner in E.P. No. 3 of 2014 in O.P. No. 345 of 2012 on the files of the Family Court, Vatakala. The said OP was filed by the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.5,18,185/- towards the value of gold ornaments and cash taken by respondents, who are husband, father, mother and sister. The Family Court, as per judgment dated 23.09.2013, allowed the OP directing the respondents to return 20 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or to pay a sum of Rs.4,83,185/- and a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents have preferred Mat. Appeal No. 801 of 2013. In the said appeal, this Court, as per order dated 12.08.2014, directed the respondents to deposit Rs.2,50,000/- within two months. Since the amount was not deposited, E.P No. 3 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner for recovery of the amount. In that EP, the property of the 3rd respondent to an extent of 3 ½ cents with a house is attached for sale. The respondents filed counter to the said EP stating that the property cannot be attached as the 3rd respondent, who is a domestic servant, is entitled for protection under Section 60(c) of the CPC. The Family Court, Vatakara, as per order dated 14.09.2015 in Ext.P3 order, dismissed the EP holding that the third respondent to whom the property belongs, is found entitled for benefits of Section 60(c) of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, this Original Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below ought to have allowed the EP so as to sell the property of the 3rd respondent for realisation of the amount due as per the decree in OP No. 345 of 2012. He has also contended that the claim of the 3rd respondent that she is a domestic servant is not supported by any evidence. The 3rd respondent examined as RW2, who is alleged to be the master under whom she was working as a domestic servant. The evidence of RW2 is supported by the evidence of RW1. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim put forward by the third respondent will not stand. In fact, OP was filed for return of 21 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments or to pay its value to the tune of Rs.4,83,185/- and that OP was decreed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has initiated execution proceedings and that too against the property belongs to the third respondent, the mother of the first respondent. In the EP, the third respondent has raised a contention that she is entitled to get protection under Section 60(c) of CPC and she requests for the dismissal of the EP on the premise that she is a domestic servant of the property mentioned in the EP. The property under attachment is 3/12 cents, in which there is a house, where the third respondent and her family are residing. According to her, the property belongs to her is not liable to be attached and sold. The evidence was taken by examining RWs 1 and 2 and Ext.B1 was marked. RW1 is the third respondent and she has given evidence to the effect that she is a maid servant of RW2 working in his house for the last 20 years. She is suffering from disk prolapse and she is unable to go for hard work. Further, she has taken a contention that her two sons are suffering from allergic problems. He husband was a mason by profession. In fact, her family is surviving on her income which derives from her job as a domestic servant of RW2. RW2 has deposed that he was working abroad. Thereafter, he came back and settled in Kozhikode. His wife is deaf and dumb person and his mother is an aged person. RW1 is a maid servant to attend external jobs such as cleaning the courtyard and the house and wash the clothes for the past 20 years and she has been paid sum of Rs.150/- per day. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the intention of RW2 is only to protract the entire proceedings and to deny the payment of the amount whic