NALLAMMAL Vs. KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order in R. E. P. 701 of 1982 in O. S. 1552 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal, restricting the claim of the revision petitioner to maintenance for only three years.

(2.) The revision petitioner has obtained a decree against her husband for maintenance to be paid at the rate of Rs. 34 per month. The decree was passed on consent by both parties on the 23rd Aug., 1971. The revision petitioner has filed the execution petition claiming a sum of Rs. 4,852, towards arrears of maintenance, which her husband has not paid from the date of decree till 21st April, 1982. The execution petition itself is filed on 22nd April, 1982. The executing Court restricted the maintenance to only three years and after deducting a sum of Rs. 100 already paid, it ordered execution for arrears of maintenance only for three years. In so doing, the learned District Munsif placed reliance on Art. 105 of the Limitation Act. Art. 105 of the Limitation Act may be extracted for easy reference : If only the executing Court had gone carefully into Art. 105 and examined the same, it would have found that Art. 105 applies to a suit'. What was maintenance as is evident from the caption 'description of suit'. What was overlooked by the executing court is that this is a petition for execution of decree for maintenance filed by the decree-holder wife. The proper Art. that would govern the execution petition would be Art. 136 of the Limitation Act, which runs thus : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(MAD)11_1986_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Twelve years have not elapsed from the date of decree and, therefore, the execution petition is perfectly maintainable for the entire arrears claimed from the date of decree till 21st April, 1982. The order of the Court below is wrong and has to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The revision is allowed with costs. As the execution petition is very old, the executing court will expedite the same. Revision allowed.