An amendment to a statute that reduces the maximum period of detention in civil prison is retrospective and applies to pending proceedings, and does not affect any vested rights.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Muktadar. J. dismissing the Appeal 282 of 1976 filed against the order of the 1st Additional Judge, city Civil Court. Hyderabad allowing E. P 4/75 in OS 507/70 on the file of that court.

( 2 ) THE respondents herein, who are the wife and daughter of the appellant, filed that suit for recovery of maintenance and for other reliefs against the appellant and obtained a decree. The court below awarded maintenance to first respondent at Rs 100/- per month and to the 2nd respondent at Rs 75/- per month until she is married. The appellant also was directed to pay Rs 5,000/- to the first respondent for the marriage expenses of the 2nd respondent. Items 1 to 3 of the plaint second schedule were to stand charged for the payment of the decree amount. Alleging that the appellant was in possession and ownership of about 18-1/2 acres of land from which he waa deriving substantial income of nearly Rs 3,500/-; that he was also a Head Constable earning the salary of Rs 300/- per month and that inspite of the fact that he had the means to pay the decree amount, he was not doing so, the first respondent filed the execution petition, praying for the arrest of the appellant.

( 3 ) THE appellant resisted the application stating that he was only getting rs 600/- per year as income from the land and only Rs 200/- per month as an employee in the Excise Department and he had a father, a widowed sister and her son to maintain. Therefore it could not be said that he had means to pay the decree amount and he was wilfully evading payment. The Court below did not accept the defendant s case and found that he was getting a salary of Rs 300/- per month and not income of rs 3,500/- per year from the lands. As he did not pay the decretal amount or a substantial portion thereof, the Court ordered the arrest of the appellant.

( 4 ) THE appellant preferred CMA 282/76 against the said order, muktadar, J. agreed with the finding of the Court below that the appellant was getting a net income of about rs. 3,500/-from his lands and a salary of Rs 300/- per month as a Head Constable. He also agreed that there was no evidence to show that he was maintaining his father or the widowed sister apart from the fact that he was not bound to maintain her. He therefore affirmed the judgment of the lower Court and dismissed the appeal. The judgment-debtor has preferred this appeal against the judgment of Muktadar J. Sri Jagannadha Sastry, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that no case was made out for directing the arrest of the appellant. He submitted that a charge was created in respect of all the properties belonging to the appellant for the payment of the decretal amount and in those circumstances he was not in a position to sell the properties. The property did not yield more than Rs 600/- per year as income. Further, subsequent to the order of the lower court, departmental action was taken against him and he was placed under suspension and he is therefore being paid only a fraction of his salary ae substance allowance. The appellant had made an offer in the lower court itself that the petitioner may take possession of 3 acres and odd of the land and cultivate it herself and derive income therefrom and adjust the income towards the maintenance due to her and the daughter. During the course of the arguments jagannadha Sastry went further and said that his client was willing to put the 1st respondent in possession not only of the 3 acres of land but of the entire land and the respondents may appropriate the income derived from the lands towards the maintenance due to them. He submitted that the application was not bonafide and was made with a view to harass and cqarse the appellant. The proper remedy for the respondents was to proceed against the charged properties, bring them to sale and adjust the sale proceeds towards the decree amount. Instead of doing so they bad resorted to the extrao

Click Here to Read the rest of this document