IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4423 of 2010 Between: M.A. Hakeem .. Petitioner AND Sabiha Begum & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4423 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. D. Radhika, learned counsel representing Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The order under revision is directing the revision petitioner/judgment debtor to be subjected to civil imprisonment for a period of one month or till the realization of the Execution Petition amount whichever is earlier subject to the payment of process and subsistence allowance by respondents 1 and 2 herein/decree holders. 3. In O.S.No.135 of 2002, on the file of the trial Court, a decree was passed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 herein granting maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to the minor son and for the realization of the decreetal sum of Rs.1,66,693/-, the Execution Petition was filed. 4. The revision petitioner contested the execution contending that he not only filed an appeal in A.S.No.1 of 2008 against the judgment and decree, dated 01.12.2007, in O.S.No.135 of 2002, he also had no means to satisfy the decree debt. After examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Exs.P-1, R-1 to R-4 during the enquiry into the Execution Petition, the Executing Court, in the impugned order, firstly found that the revision petitioner is a resident of Miryalguda and has properties at Miryalguda, due to which the Executing Court has the jurisdiction to execute the decree in question. The Executing Court also found that the revision petitioner sold away his property after the filing of the suit and is doing business earning a decent income. The Executing Court also found that the revision petitioner is young, hale and healthy and has capacity to earn money. He, therefore, was considered to be evading payment of maintenance amount and consequently, his arrest and detention in civil prison was ordered. 5. The revision petitioner challenges the same herein contending that as per the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the decree could not have been granted and the order in execution of the decree was passed without finding whether the revision petitioner had sufficient means to pay the decree debt. The mandatory requirements of Section 51 and Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were not complied with and the properties possessed by the revision petitioner were not yielding any income. The revision petitioner claimed to be a resident of Khammam with notices having been served at Khammam and, therefore, he desired the impugned order to be reversed. 6. At the time of ordering notice before admission, an interim stay was granted subject to deposit of half of the Execution Petition amount by the revision petitioner and on 26.11.2010, the first petitioner for herself and her minor son, the second petitioner, was permitted to withdraw the amount in deposit to the credit of the Execution Petition without furnishing any security. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. 8. In so far as the finding about the presence of territorial jurisdiction for the Executing Court is concerned, the Executing Court found with reference to Exs.R-1 and R-2-Sale Deeds and Exs.R-3 and R-4-Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney and Rectification Deed that the first judgment debtor, with an intention to evade the payment of maintenance and leave the jurisdiction of the Court, sold away the property under Ex.R-1-Sale Deed, dated 30.05.2002. It is also noted that the revision petitioner appeared before the Court at Miryalguda in both the civil and criminal cases and the Executing Court refused to act on the oral evidence of R.W.1 in the absence of any documentary proof to show that the revision petitioner was residing in Khammam. The Executing Court observed that he could have produced a certificate to show that he is working as a Sweeper in the Mosque at Khammam and, therefore, it came to the conclusion which is under challenge which does not in any manner appear to be against the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record and, therefore, the finding is not susceptible to any interference. 9. The very sale of the property after the suit and the other circumstances probablising the revision petitioner owning immovable properties and the residential house led the Executing Court to consider the revision petitioner to be having the means to pay the decree debt, but still will fully neglected to pay the maintenance awarded to respondents 1 and 2 herein. In this regard also, there is no evidence worth acceptance for the revision petitioner to reject the inference drawn from Exs.R-1 to R-4 or the positive evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 10. While the order under revision is, therefore, not susceptible to interference in the restricted exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, Sri K.V. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner had great financial difficulty in securing even half of the Execution Petition amount which he deposited in compliance with the interim directions of this Court and will be greatly disadvantaged, if he were to be directed to pay the entire balance of the Execution Petition amount immediately. Though the revision petitioner is not a man of no means and has been probablised to be having means sufficient to satisfy a substantial portion of the decree since the filing of the suit for maintenance, practical difficulties in securing the amount in lump sum may be kept in view to grant a reasonable time to him to pay the balance of the decree debt before any coercive process can be taken recourse to. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for grant of three (3) months for the purpose which is not unreasonable and it can be conceded. 11. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs, but the revision petitioner is granted time for three (3) months from today to pay the balance of the Execution Petition amount before which the direction to send him to civil prison for a period of one (1) month or till the realization of the Execution Petition amount whichever is earlier subject to payment of process and subsistence allowance by the decree holders shall be kept in abeyance. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4423 of 2010 Date: 18th April, 2011 KL