ATHIRUBAM Vs. LAHIA BI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in having directed the arrest of the Government servant who was admittedly receiving a total salary of Rs. 350 per month. The petitioner's case is that certain deductions are made towards his Provident Fund loan, and certain other attachments are being effected pursuant to other money decrees against him. All these factors were noticed by the learned Judge. But according to him, there was no proof of such deductions towards loan or deductions towards salary attachment. He ought to have given a further opportunity to the petitioner to produce such evidence. He ought not to have discountenanced them and held the view that there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the same. In any event, in the year of grace 1973 a salary of Rs. 350 even to a lower middle class family cannot be said to be an attractive one which could prompt a civil Court to issue a warrant of arrest in execution of a money decree if he fails to pay the same. It was in such circumstances, a division Bench of this Court in Madhavan Nambiar v. Chaldean Syrian Bank Ltd., (1955) 2 M.L.J. 121 :, A.I.R. 1955 Had. 409 set down a rule of equity and good conscience. Mack, J., Speaking for the Bench observed as follows :