HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI C.R.P No:2922 OF 2010 Dated: 16.7.2010 Between: Thaduri Prakash ..Petitioner And Thaduri Laxmi .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2922 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2009 passed in E.P.No.4 of 2009 in O.P.No.824 of 1998 by the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is his wife. The wife filed the above O.P. seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court below allowed the OP directing the husband to allow his wife to take to his company, within one month from 15.6.2002. Further, the Court below ordered that if the husband fails, he is liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the wife so long as disobedience continues. As the husband disobeyed the orders, the wife filed the above E.P. seeking to issue warrant of attachment of salary of her husband to a tune of Rs.1,54,125/- to the Mandal Educational Officer, Kodad Mandalam, Kodad, Nalgonda District, to deduct the same from the salary of her husband and to send the same to the Family Court, Hyderabad and also to deduct the future amount of Rs.2,000/- every month towards compensation until the termination of the E.P. The Court below issued an arrest warrant against the Judgment Debtor through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodad, Nalgonda District. Hence, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-husband. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-wife sought for a direction of attachment of the salary and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. It is no doubt true that the above E.P. is filed seeking attachment of the salary of the Judgment Debtor-husband. The reason recorded by the Court below is that the judgment debtor is absent. In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the nature of the proceedings and in view of the relief sought for in the E.P., I feel it a fit case wherein the order impugned can be set aside but subject to certain conditions. The CRP is allowed setting aside the order impugned herein subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.30,000/- and costs, if any, within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that such deposit of amount shall be subject to the result of the E.P. The Court below is directed to dispose of the E.P. in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is needless to observe that in case of non compliance of the above condition, the order impugned herein shall automatically come into operation. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 16th July, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2922 OF 2010 16.07.2010