THATHAMMAL Vs. VPARANKUSAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from a somewhat unusual situation which has arisen between a husband and wife. In O.S. No. 289 of 1927 the wife sued her husband for the return of jewels or their value and in due course in December, 1928, obtained a decree against him. Meanwhile early in 1928 the husband sued his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree ordering such restitution on the 7 March, 1928. In 1930, both parties filed execution petitions. The wife's execution petition is 609 of 1930 filed on the 7 August and the husband's 627 of 1930 filed on the 10 September. Both these execution petitions were disposed of on the 17 September. The prayer of the husband that the wife's decree should be attached was allowed and the prayer of the wife that execution should proceed against the person of her husband to recover the money due to her was dismissed apparently on the ground that the decree was under attachment in execution of the husband's decree. Against both these orders the wife has appealed, the subject-matter of C.M.A. No. 54 being the order dismissing her application and the subject-matter of C.M.A. No. 55 being the order allowing attachment in her husband's execution application.

(2.) C.M.A. No. 55 may be very briefly disposed of as it is only of academical interest. The appellant argues that the Court ought not to have ordered attachment on the ground that the previous attachment already effected in 1929 was still in force. According to Order 21, Rule 32 (4) an attachment of a decree in favour of a decree-holder in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights will cease in certain circumstances at the end of one year. Those circumstances having arisen in this case the previous attachment which was effected in March, 1929 had already ceased by the time the new attachment was ordered in September, 1930.

(3.) C.M.A. No. 55 therefore fails and is dismissed.