IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.963 OF 2010 Between: P. Tirupalu .....PETITIONER AND L. Yasoda ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.963 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) is directed against the order, dated 30.11.2009, in E.P.No.116 of 2009 in O.S.No.10 of 2004, on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, whereunder and whereby, an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner/judgment debtor for the unsatisfied portion of the decree debt on payment of process and subsistence allowance as per rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent/decree holder failed to establish that though the petitioner/judgment debtor is having sufficient means to pay the remaining decreetal amount, still he is wantonly and willfully evading to pay the decreetal amount; that there is no proof to show that the petitioner is doing money lending business and he was earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and hence, he prays to set aide the impugned order. 3. Though served, none appears for the respondent. 4. The evidence of the respondent/decree holder would go to show that she filed an Execution Petition for attachment of salary of the petitioner/judgment debtor on previous occasion and recovered an amount of Rs.24,000/- by attaching the salary of the petitioner for about twenty four months and thereafter, the present petition is filed to arrest the petitioner, as the petitioner is evading to pay the remaining decreetal amount. 5. Section 51 read with Order XXI Rule 37 CPC empower the court to send judgment debtor to civil prison when he willfully does not honour the decree with an intention to neglect or evade to pay the decreetal amount. In considering an application for arrest of a judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 38 CPC, two requirements are to be established by the decree holder viz., the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount and that he is wantonly or willfully avoiding to pay the same. If these two ingredients are satisfied, then the judgment debtor is liable to be sent to civil prison. 6. Even though no proof is filed by the respondent to show that the petitioner is doing money lending business, the fact remains that he is an employee in Nagarjuna Sagar Project and he is getting salary of more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Even according to the petitioner, he is getting salary of Rs.8,357/- per month and after deduction of Rs.3,771/- per month, his net salary is about Rs.4,616/- per month. Only the standard deductions can be permissible so as to determine the actual income of the petitioner/judgment debtor. If that is taken into consideration, he is getting more than Rs.7,000/- per month. If an amount of Rs.2,000/- is deducted per month, the entire decreetal amount would have been discharged. So, from the evidence on record, it can be inferred that the petitioner is earning not less than Rs.7,000/- per month towards salary, after deducting the standard deductions. 7. The next question is whether the petitioner is wantonly or willfully avoiding to pay the decreetal amount. The decree was passed on 27.06.2005 and till the attachment of his salary was ordered by the executing Court in the earlier Execution Petition, the petitioner has not evinced any interest to discharge the decreetal amount. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner/judgment debtor is not paying the remaining decreetal amount voluntarily to the respondent/decree holder so as to satisfy the decree. The intention of the petitioner is to delay the execution proceedings. Therefore, non-payment of the remaining decreetal amount can be said to be only intentional or wanton. Hence, the executing Court rightly ordered for arrest of the judgment debtor. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the order of the executing Court is kept under abeyance for a period of three months from today to enable the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay the balance of the decreetal amount. For any reason, if the petitioner fails to pay the remaining decreetal amount within the time stipulated above, the order of the executing Court shall be given effect to. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J March 03, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.963 OF 2010 March 03, 2011