IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2926 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.5.2011 Baljinder Singh … Petitioner versus Kulwant Kaur and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Shangara Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the husband/judgment-debtor. He is aggrieved with order dated 4.12.2010 passed by the executing Court whereby warrants of attachment to the extent of 1/3rd of his salary have been issued. The facts are that the wife and son of the present petitioner filed suit against him under Section 17 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and for recovery of Rs.2,88,000/- as arrears of maintenance from February, 2003 to February 2006. Suit was decreed ex-parte on 5.3.2010 fixing the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month for plaintiff No.1 and Rs.2500/- per month for plaintiff No.2 (son) from the date of filing of the suit along with arrears on Rs.1,86,000/-. Plaintiff-decree-holders filed an execution petition in which the present impugned order has been passed. Hence, this revision. Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner's wife had also filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein his salary to the extent of 1/3rd has already been attached and in the execution petition, decree-holders have not disclosed the fact that salary to the extent of 1/3rd has already been attached. Counsel for the petitioner apprises this Court that now his 2/3rd salary is being attached by virtue of different orders. This position seems to have arisen as the present petitioner had remained ex-parte C.R. No. 2926 of 2011 -2- when the earlier attachment order was passed and in the present attachment order, it also does not appear that the same was passed in his presence. In view of this, in all fairness, the impugned order stands set aside and the case is remitted back to the executing Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 4, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE