PANKAJ MAHAKUD Vs. TARA MAHAKUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Direction for Civil imprisonment after arrest in an execution proceeding of decree for money is grievance of judgment-debtor in this Civil Revision,

(2.) Main ground of attack by Mr. R. K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for petitioner is that judgment-debtor having no means to pay direction is in violation of Section 51, C. P. C.

(3.) Decree-holder is wife of judgment-debtor. Satisfying the pre-conditions, she obtained decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. Judgment-debtor not having paid the same, she applied for execution of the decree by detention in Civil prison unless the decretal amount is paid. Despite valid service of notice, judgment-debtor not having appeared to raise objection as provided in Section 47, C. P. C. on 27-4-1989, order was passed to issue warrant of arrest for which requisites had been filed. Long four months after, Nazir returned the same unexecuted with report that Munda cheque is not available. It was directed to be reissued, On 6-11-1989 decree-holder filed a petition that in spite of the fact that execution has been filed on 27-4-1987 and direction to arrest has been issued on 27-4-1989, Nazir is not executing the same on the plea of non-availability of Munda cheque. She prayed to send the judgment-debtor direct to prison. On 10-11-1989, executing Court directed to move the District Judge. On 19-3-1990, Nazir reported that Munda cheque has been received, On that basis, executing Court directed issue of warrant of arrest against the judgment-debtor. These dates have been indicated just to highlight how a destitute wife has been deprived of her maintenance on account of procedural delay in executing court in spite of provisions for periodical inspections to control and regulate functioning of courts.