J U D G M E N T

Challenging Ext.P10, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

2. As per Ext.P1, the 5th respondent was directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at different rates to the petitioners. The application for maintenance and an application seeking statutory protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were compromised as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders. As the 5th respondent did not honour his commitment as per Ext.P1 order, the petitioners approached the Kerala State Legal Services Authority for initiating action in the matter. However, thereafter, Ext.P4 order was passed by the Family Court, Palakkad ordering attachment of an amount of ₹5,000/- per month from the salary of the 5th respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P4, warrant for attachment of salary of 5th respondent was issued by the Family Court, Palakkad, under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as evidenced by Exts.P9 and P9(a). However, by Ext.P10, respondents 1 to 3 have intimated that no attachment of salary could be made as the employer Department was not a party to the litigation and that the attachment of salary was not made as prescribe