JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order, asserting that, even though he was ready to pay Rs.43,476/-, as demanded by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P5, for the vehicle in question to be registered in his name, it was not accepted by the said Court; and that it has issued the impugned order, directing him to hand over the vehicle to her.

2. Smt.Nisha Mathew – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that, Ext.P6 order has been issued in IA No.7/2024 filed by the 2^nd respondent in OP No.12/2024; and that the said application is on record as Ext.P5. She showed us that, in Ext.P5, the 2^nd respondent has undertaken that she is willing to transfer the registry of the vehicle to any of the parties, provided she is paid Rs.43,476/-. She argued that, when her client is ready to pay the said amount, the learned Family Court ought not to have issued Ext.P6, but to have allowed him to pay the money and have the registration of the vehicle in his name.

3. When we examine Ext.P6, we noticed that the learned Family Court had not taken note of any submission by the petitioner that he is willing to pay Rs.43,476/- to the 2^nd respondent. In fact, in the first paragraph