VEERANNA ARADYA Vs. M V JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21-7-1979 of the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Magistrate) in case Nil. (ExhibitA).

(2.) On the foot of an on demand promissory note executed by the petitioner in her favour for Rs. 4,000/ or so, respondent No. 1 filed a suit in O.S. No. 46 of 1977 for the recovery of the said amount with interest due thereon in the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, which was contested by him on diverse grounds. By his judgment and decree dated 15-7-1978, the learned Additional Munsiff decreed the said suit filed by respondent No. 1 which has become final. Some time in 1979, the petitioner presented an application before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for extinguishment of the aforesaid 'decretal amount due to respondent No. 1. On 21-7-1979, the Magistrate has rejected the said application on the ground that the said liability falls within the exemption of sub-clause (f) of Section 8 of the Act.

(3.) Sri K.N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the decree passed by the learned Additional Munsiff was not a decree for maintenance to attract sub-clause (f) of section 8 of the Act. He has produced for my perusal a certified copy of the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 46 of 1977. In my opinion Sri Subba Reddy is right in his submission that the decree made in O.S. No. 46 of 1977 is not a decree for maintenance and does not attract sub- clause (f) of Section 8 of the Act. But the question is whether on this ground alone the order of the Magistrate calls for my interference.