MILKHA SINGH Vs. PIAR KOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil First. Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Add! District Judge, Jammu, dated 14 -8 -1974, whereby he held the decree, passed against the appellant by Sub -Judge Dasuya, to be executable. The facts of this case lie in a very narrow compass :

(2.) RESPONDENT -decree holder obtained a decree from the court of the learned Sub Judge Dasuya (Punjab) in suit No: 187 of 1971 against the appellant. According to the decree sheet, a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4Q/ - P. M. with effect from 21 -3 -1969 was passed in favour of the respondent who was, thus, held, entitled to recover the arrears amounting to Rs. 1560/ - together with the costs of the Suit from the appellant. Since, the Judgment debtor resided within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court of the District Judge, Jammu, and since also the property of the judgment debtor was situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said court, the learned Sub -Judge, Dasuya, on an application made to him in this behalf by the decree holder, sent the certificate of recovery to the court of the learned District Judge, Jammu under order 21 Rule 6 and transferred decree to that court for its execution. The learned Addl. District Judge, Jammu, to whom the execution application was assigned on its transfer, issued attachment warrants against the property of the appellant for realisation of the decretal amount. Counsel for the appellant appeared and filed his objections. In the objection petition filed by the appellant it was averred inter -alia that the court of Sub -Judge, Dasuya had no jurisdiction to pass the decree, and as such, the decree was null and void and was not executable, that the appellant had obtained a decree of judicial separation followed by a decree of divorce against his wife (the respondent) from the court of District Judge Jammu, and, therefore, she was not entitled to receive any maintenance, that he had already filed an appeal against the decree in the court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur and, therefore, the decree could not be executed as the decree of the trial court had merged in the decree of the appeal -late court which had confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The respondent filed objections to the application and contested all the pleas raised by the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Addl. District - Judge heard the parties and opined that the objections of the respondent were without any force. He also observed that the respondent had himself appeared before the court at Dasuya and it was after congest that the suit had been decreed and, therefore, his challenge to the excitability of the decree was misconceived. It was also found that the second objection of the appellant to the effect that, since the appellant had obtained a decree of divorce, the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance in execution of the decree is not tenable and that inspite of the decree of, divorce, the respondent was entitled to maintenance till she remained un -married.