PREMSHANKAR NARAYAN Vs. LALITHA NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the order passed in the Execution petition for arrest and detention of the petitioner the Civil Revision petition has been preferred.

(2.) Petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife. The respondent/wife filed a petition for maintenance in M.C.No.545 of 2006. Petitioner/husband filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.2810 of 2011 on the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai. Against which, the respondent/wife has filed petition for restoration of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.4255 of 2011. There are lot of civil and criminal proceedings initiated by parties against each other. During pendency of these litigations, the respondent/wife filed an I.A vide I.A.No.2177 of 2014 claiming interim maintenance. II Additional Family Court, Chennai disposed of the I.A by an decree dated 29.03.2016 to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent/wife towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition i.e 19.09.2014 till the disposal of the O.P. According to the respondent/wife the maintenance arrears to be paid stands above Rs.8,00,000/-. Thereafter, she filed an execution petition in E.P.No.20 of 2016 for arrest and detention of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor. The said petition was ordered on 20.09.2018 against which the revision petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) According to the petitioner the respondent/wife was an employee of the Siemens Limited in a managerial cadre and earned a decent pay during her time of employment. She had also bought a house near Uthandi and has own sources of income. Apart from this property she owns a house at Magreth Road in Bangalore and she is getting income from the house properties, shares fixed deposits and also interest from the amount she got through voluntary retirement scheme from Siemens Ltd. She is capable of maintaining herself. Whereas, the petitioner/husband does not have any means. Since the decree holder failed to prove that he has means to pay the order of the Execution Court is not sustainable. Petitioner does not possess any immovable property or asset or any other source of income to pay the arrears of maintenance. At the age of 65, he is suffering from several ailments and undergoing medical treatment. Even to meet his personal expenses he does not have means and as such the order of arrest and detention is contrary to Or.XXI R.37 of CPC as well as Art.11 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Art.21 of Constitution of India.