Dated this the 27th day of September 2019

Harilal, J

The petitioner herein is the respondent in O.P. No. 231/2016 as

well as M.C. No.128/02018 filed by the respondent herein.

O.P.231/2016 was filed for realisation of money and value of

gold ornaments from the petitioner herein and M.C.

No.128/2016 was filed for getting maintenance allowance to the

respondent and children. In O.P.No.231/2016 the respodnent

filed I.A.No.467/2016 and obtained an order of interim

conditional attachment of his entire property consists of Item

Nos. 1 to 4 in M.C No.128/2016. The court below directed the

petitioner to pay entire interim maintenance allowance due from

him to the respondent and for that Item No.1 in the property has

to be sold. The petitioner herein filed objection against the order

of attachment and filed the aforesaid application to lift the

attachment of plaint schedule property mentioned in

I.A.No.467/2016. The respondent resisted the said contention

contending that the value of the property other than Item No.1 is

3

not sufficient to realise the entire interim maintenance allowance

due from him and the decree that may be passed against the

petitioner. The petitioner is a financially sound person having

sufficient means, but, he wilfully refused to pay maintenance

allowance to the respodnent who have no means for their

livelihood. In short, according to them, Item Nos.2 to 4 in I.A.

No.4647/2016 are sufficient for the recovery of the the entire

amount due from the petitioner under Original Petiton and M.C.

2.

After consdiering the rival contentions, the court

dismissed the said application for lifting the attachment from

Item No.1 on a finding that no reliable legal evidence has been

produced to prove the value of the property and there is no

evidence to arrive at a finding that the property other than Item

No.1 is sufficient to recover the entire amount due from the

petitioner under the decree passed in her favour. This order is

under challenge in this Original Petition(FC).

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

4.

It is not disputed that respondents have already

obtained interim order of maintenance directing the petitioner

4

herein to pay the entire maintenance allowance to the

respodnent and children. Admittedly, the petitioner is the father

of 8 children. According to respondent he willfully refused to

pay the maintenance allowance to the petitioner and children

and they have no means for their livelihood. The learned

counsel for the respondent submits that an amount of

Rs.2,56,000/- is due from the petitioner to the respondent

under the order of maintenance allowance. Though the petition

schedule consists of four items having an extent of 65, 13, 2

and 2 ^½ cents respecitvely, no reliable valuation certificate

issued by the approved valuer has been produced to

substantiate his contention that the property other than Item

No.1 is sufficient to realise the amount due and the amount

that may be due under the decree to be passed. So also,

eventhough he contended that the property is mortgaged to

Pothukallu Service Co-operative bank, no document has been

produced to prove the said mortgage to the bank. In the

absence of sufficient evidence to prove the value of the

property, we do not find fault with the court below.

5.

But, the petitioner is given one more opportunity to

5

file an application to lift the attachment from any item in Item

Nos. 2 to 4 on condition that petitioner shall deposit

Rs.2,56,000/- as arrears of maintenance allowance within a

period of two months from today. On compliance of the said

condition, the petitioner is permitted to file an application to lift

the attachment from Item Nos. 2 to 4 alongwith valuation

certificate issued by the Thahasildar. After consdiering the

valuation certificate to be produced by the petitioner, if the

court finds that the value of Item No.1 i