Parties must seek appropriate remedies from the lower court rather than directly approach the higher court without following procedures.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner suffered decree in O.P.No.1086/2015 on the files of the learned Family Court, Kannur; and asserts that he has discharged the same fully. He alleges that, however, the decree holder, namely the respondent herein, has filed a new calculation statement on 06.11.2025, imputing that more amounts are due, based on the calculation of fluctuating gold prices; and contends that this is illegal and unlawful because, once he made payment, no further fluctuation of gold prices should have been looked into. He adds that, in the meanwhile, a warrant of arrest has been issued against him by the learned Family Court in E.P.No.7/2018; and hence that he has been constrained to approach this Court through this Original Petition.

2. Sri.P.S.Anishad – learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated that the continuation of the Execution Petition before the learned Family Court is illegal and unlawful, once his client has discharged the entire decree amount.

3. The submissions of the petitioner are edificed on facts which are not available for us to adjudicate at this stage. If the petitioner has a contention that he has discharged the entire decree debt, it is for him to move an appropriate application before the learned Family Court under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC); and seek that the decree be recorded to be satisfied. If this is done, the warrant against him, if any, also has to be recalled by the learned Family Court. The petitioner, admittedly, has not invoked this remedy and has approached this Court directly.

4. We are afraid that we cannot, therefore, come to the aid of the petitioner, but leave him liberty to move the learned Family Court appropriately as per law.

This Original Petition is thus ordered.