IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4818 OF 2006 Between: Jarugula Annapurnamma …Petitioner A n d Jarugula Venkata Subbaiah ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4818 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06-06-2005 in E.A.No.38 of 2005 in E.P.No.3 of 2001 in O.S.No.925 of 1980, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXI Rules 105 and 106 and Section 151 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/DHr and the learned counsel for the respondent/JDr. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. She obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of 100/- per month. Even the said amount was not paid by the respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed E.P.No.3 of 2001 seeking arrest of respondent/JDr. While the said E.P was coming for enquiry, the same was dismissed on 09-06-2003 for default. The petitioner herein filed E.A.No.260 of 2003 for setting aside the default dismissal order. The execution court by order dated 17-01-2005 allowed the said application subject to the condition that the petitioner shall get ready for enquiry by 31-01-2005, failing which the order stands cancelled. According to the petitioner, she was out of station, having gone to Hyderabad during the said period and, therefore, she was not aware of the condition imposed while allowing her application E.A.No.260 of 2003 and, therefore, she could not get ready for enquiry. As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 31- 01-2005, the execution court dismissed E.A.No.260 of 2003. In view of the conditional order passed earlier, the present application E.A.No.38 of 2005 is filed seeking for restoration of the E.P. The same was opposed by the respondent/JDr on the ground that the conditional order worked itself out, as the petitioner did not get ready for enquiry on 31-01-2005. The execution court dismissed E.A.No.38 of 2005 as not maintainable. 4. Both the petitioner and respondent are aged around 72 years. The maintenance granted is only Rs.100/- per month. The EP was filed about 10 years back. According to the petitioner, even the paltry amount of Rs.100/- per month is not being paid by the respondent. No doubt, the execution court while allowing E.A.No.260 of 2003 imposed a condition that the petitioner shall get ready for enquiry by 31-01-2005. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that as she was out of station during the relevant period between 17-01-2005 and 31- 01-2005, she was not aware of the condition imposed and, therefore, she could not get ready for the enquiry. 5. In the circumstances, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to pursue the execution proceedings against the respondent, having regard to the fact that the decree sought to be executed is one for maintenance and the amount is only Rs.100/- per month. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing E.A.No.38 of 2005 is set aside and consequently the said EA stands allowed, as a result EA.No.260 of 2003, which was dismissed, stands allowed and EP is restored to file. Both parties are directed to get ready for the enquiry in the EP. Having regard to the fact that EA is of the year 2005 and both parties are senior citizens, aged more than 70 years, the execution court is directed to dispose of the EP within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th February, 20011 Lrkm.