THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4171 OF 2009 Dated 15th September, 2009 Between: P.Shiv Kumar …Petitioner And P.Venkatanagalaxmi …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Vijay Ashrit Counsel for the responent : Sri Bankathlal Mandhani The Court made the following O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by docket order dated 13.03.2008 passed by the Family Court, Warangal in Review Petition (SR) No.46 of 2008. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He filed an Original Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said O.P, the respondent filed application under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking maintenance to herself and to their daughter. Though initially an amount of Rs.1,000/- was awarded by the Court below, each to the respondent and their daughter, subsequently the amount was enhanced. In the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent for recovery of the said amount, the salary of the petitioner was attached. Challenging the same, he approached this Court by filing CRP No.4900 of 2007 on the ground that the order is opposed to Section 60 CPC. This Court, while holding that attachment of salary to the extent of two-third could not be found fault with, dismissed the said Civil Revision Petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to file an application for review before the trial Court, if he is of the view that there exist any notifications, exempting any allowances granted to him from the purview of attachment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking review of the order of attachment, which was numbered as Review Petition (SR) No.46 of 2008 and the same was returned by the Court below with an objection that the petitioner has to file the copy of the Central Government notification, on which he wants to rely on, for seeking review. Questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. If notification on which the petitioner wants to rely on is not filed, the Court below ought to have considered the review petition on merits and passed appropriate orders. But even without numbering the said petition, the Court below insisted for production of the notification and returned the same. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there was no notifications at all issued by the Central Government as pleaded by the petitioner exempting certain allowances for attachment. Whether any notification exists or not exempting certain allowances as pleaded by the petitioner is a matter to be gone into while considering the petition for review on merits. On the ground that such notification is not filed, the petition ought not to have been rejected in limini by not numbering the same. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Family Court, Warangal, to register and number Review Petition (SR) No.46 of 2008 and to consider the same on merits. If in support of his plea, the petitioner fails to file any notification, it is open to the Court below to pass appropriate orders on the review petition. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 15th September, 2009 vrn