BHASKAR Vs. MADHAVIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband against whom a decree was passed directing him to pay compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of divorce and also maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- to the first child and Rs. 75/-to his other two children per month, is the revision petitioner. Several attempts have been made to execute the decree and realise the amount due. THE attempts have been successfully resisted by the petitioner on several occasions. Originally when execution was taken, he pleaded that he had no means to pay. That defence was overruled and he was arrested. Subsequently, an application was filed for attachment of his properties, when the wife apprehended that the husband was intending to alienate his properties. Attachment was ordered. It is, however, unnecessary to refer to the further steps, taken in that execution petition, for, there was another execution petition, which was filed in the meanwhile. That executions petition was dismissed on 23-2-1980 "subject to the subsistence of the attachment". In the next execution petition, out of which this revision arises, E. P. No. 89 of 1984, the husband contended that there was no attachment subsisting from 23. 2. 1980 and he sold the properties to strangers thereafter and those properties could not be proceeded against for the realisation of the decretal amount. THE husband relied on 0. 21 R. 57 to contend that when the execution petition is dismissed without any direction regarding the continuance of attachment, the attachment did not continue and there was no bar to alienate, and the sale effected by him was valid and those properties could not be proceeded against in this execution petition. THE court below held that the order dated 23. 2. 1980 did not direct the continuance of the attachment; but even then there is no bar to the continuance of the execution petition and directed the property to be sold in execution. It is against this order that this revision is filed.

(2.) I have perused the original records. The order dated 23. 2. 1980 specifically directs the attachment to continue because the E. P. was dismissed "subject to the subsistence of the attachment". The court below was therefore wrong in assuming that the attachment did not continue after 23. 2. 1980.

(3.) IN this view, the earlier order dated 23. 2. 1980 directed the attachment to continue and as the attachment subsists, the executing court was right in proceeding with the execution for the sale of the attached properties. The C. R. P. is dismissed. No costs. . .