PEDAPUDI NOOKARATNAM Vs. PEDAPUDI VENKATA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Neither the decree under execution nor the application for its execution prior to E.P. No. 546 of 1945 are before me, and I have to gather the contents of these documents from what has been set out in the judgment of the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The operative portion of the decree in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent-decree- holder against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights was apparently: The Court having directed (by an order dated 12 March, 1943), the plaintiff to give an undertaking within tree days that he should reside with his wife, the third defendant, away from his parents for about a month, failing which the suit will stand dismissed with costs and further holding that if the plaintiff gives the undertaking, there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights.... The plaintiff having given the necessary undertaking on this date, the Court doth order and decree that the third defendant do go to the plaintiff and render conjugal duties, that in case the third defendant, does not go and render such rights, the plaintiff do take the necessary process through Court to get the third defendant to his house for securing conjugal rights and to live with him etc. The wife was a minor when E.P. No. 255 of 1943 and E.P. No. 92 of 1944 were filed, where the prayer was for the attachment of the moveables of her father. Those applications were dismissed. After the wife, the judgment-debtor, became sui juris. E.P. No. 546 of 1945 was filed with prayers in the alternative (1) for restitution of conjugal rights; and (2) on the failure of the judgment-debtor to comply with the terms of the decree, to attach her moveables.

(3.) The learned district Munsiff to whom the application for execution was made dismissed the application. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge directed execution to proceed by attachment of the wife s, judgment-debtor s, moveables.