MANUKONDA MANGAMMA Vs. CHEELI ROSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondents not represented.

(2.) The main question which arises for our consideration in this revision petition is whether a woman could be arrested for non-compliance of the decree passed by the Court of law. The decree in the instant case is for a permanent injunction. The office of the Lower Court took objection about the maintainability of the execution petition on the ground that the judgment debtors who were sought to be so arrested were women. The learned 1st Additional District Munsif, Guntur, while rejecting the execution petition observed in his impugned order that mere arrest did not mean that it was detention in civil prison, but the words 'detention in civil prison' ex facie showed that the women had to be detained in civil prison and, therefore, he was of the opinion that the word "arrest" used in Clause (2) was quite different from that of detention in civil prison. He further observed that Clause (2) dealt with only "exemption from personal appearance in Court" and, therefore, this Clause (2) was not applicable. On the basis of this observation, the learned Judge, rejected the execution petition, but gave liberty to the decree holder to seek other remedy available under Order 21, Rule 32 of C.P.C. viz., for attachment of their properties.

(3.) Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that: "........the Court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment ofmoney.