Disposed

Burri Kotaiah, v. Burri Shakunthala

Telangana HC15 Apr 2011CRP/4005/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order of arrest in execution of a maintenance decree. The Court rejected the debtor's claim of inability to pay due to Section 125 Cr.P.C. payments, finding evidence of sufficient means. The Court directed the debtor to discharge the balance within six months subject to an interim stay compliance.

What did the court decide?

Judgment-debtor granted six months to discharge balance subject to compliance of interim stay order; otherwise, lower court to proceed with execution steps.

Burri Kotaiah, Vs Burri Shakunthala — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

C.R.P.No. 4005 of 2009

¶3

DATE: 15-04-2011

¶4

Between: Burri Kotaiah Burri Shakunthala

¶5

.. Petitioner And

¶6

.. Respondent

¶7

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶8

C.R.P.No. 4005 of 2009

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 18.06.2009 in E.P.No.30 of 2008 in O.S.No.266 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, ordering arrest of the judgment-debtor for not paying the decreetal amount in O.S.No.266 of 2000.

¶11

The said suit was filed by the wife of the judgment-debtor for recovery of the maintenance and as the maintenance claim was not settled and that amount was not paid, the Execution Petition was filed for recovery of nearly Rs.1,94,494/-. After appearance of the judgmentdebtor, he filed a counter that he was already paying some amount in the proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) and that he has borrowed money for the treatment of his family members and he was indebted to others and, therefore, the

¶12

amount cannot be paid and cannot be arrested.

¶13

On enquiry, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda found that the judgment-debtor has got sufficient means and he was getting also pension apart from agricultural land and ordered arrest of the judgment-debtor.

¶14

Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.06.2009, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶15

The point for consideration is whether the judgment-debtor is liable to be arrested?

¶16

POINT:

¶17

Evidently, the decreetal amount was not satisfied in spite of several years after the passing of the decree. The revision petitioner has since retired from service and also got some retirement benefits. He is also drawing pension. Apart from it, he said to be holding some agricultural lands. Merely because, the judgment-debtor is paying a paltry amount of Rs.1,000/- in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., it does not mean that the execution of this decree shall be defeated. The attempt of the revision petitioner by filing so many promissory notes as if he has borrowed the money and discharged the same only goes to show that he was borrowing the money and either spending it for his own purpose or for any other purpose except payment of the maintenance to the wife. The fact that he has discharged the debts clearly goes to show that he has got means to pay the money and discharged the same. Therefore, the claim of the judgment-debtor that he has no means to pay the decreetal amount and that he is not liable for arrest, cannot be accepted. However, this Court by order dated 02.09.2009 in C.R.P.M.P.No. 5502 of 2009 passed an interim order granting interim stay of all proceedings on condition of the deposit of one-third of the disputed amount within six

¶18

weeks. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not able to say whether this order has been complied or not.

¶19

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, in case the above order is complied with, the judgment-debtor is given six months time from this date to discharge the entire balance of the decreetal amount, in case the conditional stay order in C.R.P.M.P.No.5502 of 2009 is not complied with, the lower Court can proceed with the further steps in execution.

¶20

With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶21

________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶22

15-04-2011 MR

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO

¶24

C.R.P.No. 4005 of 2009

¶25

DATE: 15-04-2011

¶26

Burri Kotaiah, v. Burri Shakunthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Burri Kotaiah, v. Burri Shakunthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Vittal Reddy, Vs M.Anantha

Jameel Basha, Vs M. Abdul Rahim, died per L.Rs Rr 2 to 5 who are

K. Goala Krishna Rao Vs Syndicate Bank

Akuthota sureshkumar Vs Dandolkar Niranjan

Bhimsen Gamji Vs Padmavathi Silk Center

Kuppala Srilakshmi Vs Ch. Surya Kumari