THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3322 of 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.06.2007 passed in E.P.No.59 of 2006 in I.A.No.226 of 2005 in O.P.No.365 of 2004 by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC seeking to order arrest of the General Power of Attorney Holder- M. Ranga Rao, of the petitioner for realization of the decretal amount, was allowed. 2. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor and the respondent herein is the decree holder in O.P.No.365 of 2004 filed for judicial separation. The respondent filed the above said E.P. for recovery of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/-per month and legal expenses at Rs.10,000/- from the GPA Holder of the petitioner-husband, who sent large amounts towards payment of maintenance to her from United States of America, however, the GPA holder M. Ranga Rao has not paid the same to her. The Court below allowed the said E.P., having observed that the General Power of Attorney Holder M. Ranga Rao is liable to pay the decree debt and there are sufficient grounds to arrest him. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court has committed error in ordering arrest of the GPA Holder of the petitioner, as there is no personal liability on the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the GPA holder M. Ranga Rao is no other than the father of the petitioner, who was given all powers to pay, receive all payments, bills etc. to her father by filing an application before the Court below as the petitioner is working as Software Engineer in United States of America and therefore, the General Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner is liable to pay the decretal amount. 6. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that this Court in C.R.P.No.4061 of 2005 held that as per the terms of General Power of Attorney, the GPA holder of the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts to the decree holder and therefore, he is liable to pay the decree debt. As against the said order, no appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be inferred that the said order has attained finality. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly ordered arrest of the GPA holder of the petitioner for realization of the decree debt. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.03.2010. sj