HARIHARAN Vs. MALLIGA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition has been filed by the judgment debtor who is the husband of the 1st respondent herein. The order sought to be revised is one directing the arrest of the petitioner here in on the ground that he had not complied with the order of the executing Court dated 21 -4 -1989, directing him to return the jewels to the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE relevant facts are as follows : - -The 1st respondent herein filed O.P. 84 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, for dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner and a direction to the petitioner herein to hand over the properties mentioned in the schedule to the petition as per Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it was stated as follows: - -"At the time of the marriage, the petitioner's parents on behalf of the petitioner had presented and handed over to the first respondent the properties mentioned in the schedule for conducting the conjugal home of. both the husband and wife." The petitioner, remained ex parte in the original petition. The learned Subordinate Judge passed an order on 25 -2 -1985 granting divorce as prayed for by the 1st respondent herein and directed the petitioner herein to return items 2, 3 and 4 of the schedule mentioned properties. Besides, certain jewels set out in item I of the schedule are also ordered to be returned to the 1st respondent herein.

(3.) THE executing court passed an order on 23 -3 -1989 after hearing the petitioner herein also. The petitioner had filed a counter and contested the petition. The contentions raised by the petitioner were rejected by the executing court and he was directed to comply with the order in the main case. But the language used in the order of the executing court was "to make payment". Instead of directing the petitioner to hand over the jewels, he was directed to make payment by 21 -4 -1989. The mistake was brought to the notice of the court by a memo filed by the 1st respondent and on 21 -4 -1989 the order directing the petitioner herein to return the jewels and posting the matter to 19 -7 -1989 was made by the executing court. The matter was posted for hearing on 2 -8 -1989 and the petitioner was absent on that date. The executing court passed orders on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the order passed earlier on 21 -4 -1989. It is that order which is being challenged in this revision by the petitioner.