2025:KER:29490 MAT.APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.06.2016 IN OP NO.1902 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: 1 GOURI, AGED 70 YEARS W/O. NANU PILLAI, PADINJARE CHAMPAMKULAM VEEDU, PAIPPAD, THIRUVALLA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 537. 2 VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. NANU PILLAI, PADINJARE CHAMPAMKULAM VEEDU, PAIPPAD, THIRUVALLA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 537. BY ADVS. THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.S.ABHILASH VISHNU SMT.K.R.MONISHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1/PETITIOINERS: 1 GOPIKA @ LATHA AGED 40 YEARS D/O. SARASAMMA, RESIDING AT MOOLABHAGATHU VEEDU, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101. 2025:KER:29490 MAT.APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 2 2 REVATHY, AGED 13 YEARS D/O. SOMAN, RESIDING A T MOOLABHAGATHU VEEDU, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101. 3 SOMAN, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.NANU PILLAI, PADINJARE CHAMPAMKULAM VEEDU, PAIPPAD, THIRUVALLA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 537. BY ADVS. SMT.K.KUSUMAM SRI.K.KALESH SMT.ASWATHY S.K THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29490 MAT.APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 3 JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J) This appeal has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment of the learned Family Court, Attingal; however, within a very limited compass. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree to the extent it creates charge on their property, though they have not been burdened with the liability to pay maintenance to the respondents - which they assert, is the sole liability of the 3rd respondent herein. They thus pray that the judgment impugned to the extent assailed, be set aside. 3. In response to the afore submissions of Smt.K.R.Monisha – learned counsel for the appellants, Smt.Kusumam – learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, 2025:KER:29490 MAT.APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 4 submitted that her client never claimed maintenance from the appellants, but that such was confined to the 3rd respondent. She, however, explained that, at the time when her client filed the Original Petition seeking maintenance, she had attached the properties of the 1st appellant; and that this was done under the impression that it belongs to the 3rd respondent. She, however, conceded that the said property cannot be made liable for the decree of maintenance which her client has obtained against the 3rd respondent; and therefore, prayed that every other liberty be reserved to her, while executing the same. 4. It is thus obvious that this Appeal has been filed only because the property of the 1st appellant has been attached and the learned Court has created a charge over it for the amount of maintenance ordered 2025:KER:29490 MAT.APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2020 5 against the 3rd respondent. This could not have been done, when it is unreservedly admitted that the property in question belongs to the 1st appellant, namely the mother-in-law of the 1st respondent. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Appeal and set aside that part of the impugned judgment which creates a charge over the property of the 1st appellant, which was earlier attached, as security for the claim of maintenance ordered against the 3rd respondent. In all other respects, the judgment and decree will remain unaltered. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE SAS