K DURAI THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. DEVATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 were served, they have not appeared to contest this revision. As far as the fourth respondent is concerned, the petitioner has given up the said respondent and necessary endorsement has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) An interesting question has cropped up in this revision, namely, as to when the wife along with her minor child, who had obtained a decree for maintenance as against her husband as well as the father-in-law, subsequently, joins with the husband and lives in the matrimonial home, be-getting another child through him, could it be held that irrespective of the said subsequent re-union of the wife along with the child with the husband, the decree obtained by her would survive for enforcement.

(3.) In the case on hand, the first and second respondents stated to have obtained a decree for maintenance as against the third respondent and his father as early as on 15.12.1986. Pursuant to the said decree, an execution petition came to be filed in E.P.147/90, in which the respondents 1 and 2 appeared to have obtained an order of attachment in respect of two items of properties, with reference to which, the petitioner filed a claim petition in E.A.308/91. When the properties were brought to sale, the petitioner, who is stated to have purchased both the items of the properties, came forward with the present claim petition in E.A.No.308/91 for an order that these two items of properties covered by the order of attachment in E.P.147/90 should be freed from such attachment and also to be declared that they absolutely belong to the petitioner.