Soundara Valli vs Thimmayya

Pratap Singh, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 548 of 1987 in O.P. No. 205 of 1986 on the

file of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. Short Facts are: The revision petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband respectively.

The revision petitioner filed O.P. No. 205 of 1986 for restitution of conjugal rights and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed

against the respondent. He had not obeyed the order. So, the revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 548 of 1987 under O. 21, R.32 of CPC for

attachment of salary of the respondent The respondent remained expert. After enquiry, the court below had dismissed the petition holding that the

salary of the respondent is not ""property"" falling within the submit of O. 21,R 32, C.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in the court

below has come forward with this revision petition.

Mrs. Mohana Nair, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would submit that the salary of the respondent is a ""Property"" and as it

can be attached under O. 21, R.32 C.P.C. learned counsel would sumit that unless it be so, if the husband does not own movable or immovable

property and was getting only the salary, the wife would be left without any remedy, if the interpretation given by the court below is accepted., and

that cannot be the correct interpretation.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. To consider the submission, O. 21, R.32(1) is extracted which runs as

follows:

Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, of for an injunction, has

been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree

for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or; in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract., or for an

injunction by his detention in the Civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

In this case it has been clearly made out by the revision petitioner that though she had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the

respondent has willfully failed to obey it and so, the revision petitioner has got a right to enforce it under O. 21, R.32 C.P.C. She can enforce it by

attachment of the property. She seeks attachment of the salary. Interpretation of the Court below was that ""Property"" does not include ""Salary"". If

that interpretation is taken, then the wife would be left totally without any remedy. if the husband does not have movable or immovable property

but is getting a good salary. So, it cannot be the intention of the legislature to give such a restricted meaning so far as the ""Property"" is concerned,

in O. 21, R.32 C.P.C. I find force in the submission made by Mrs. Mohana Nair that a ""Property"" includes ""Salary"". Taking that view of the

matter, the order of the Court below is clearly erroneous and it is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, the Civil revision petition is allowed

setting aside the order passed in W.P. No. 548 of 1987 and consequently E.P. No. 548 of 1987 is allowed and the salary of the respondent shall

be attached. The revision petitioner is at liberty to proceed further after attachment was made absolute, if the respondent fails to obey the order for

six months according to law. No costs.