( 1 ) PETITIONER-SMT. Subbamma. w/o B. T. Krishnappa has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia questioning the correctness or othenvise of the orders passed by the Principal Civil judge, Family Court, in Ex. No. 3 of 1993 insofar as rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the wife of the first respondent-Sri B. T. Krishnappa. Second respondent is first respondent's close relative. The third respondent is the first respondent's sister. Marriage of the petitioner did not last long. She claims that first respondent deserted her. She had approached the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original suit No. 529 of 1974 for recovery of maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- and for future maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month. She had also prayed for a declaration that the alienations made in favour of the second and third defendants by sale and gift respectively by the first defendant are nominal, collusive and fraudulent and in the alternative for declaration that those alienations are ineffective and inoperative as against the right to recover maintenance claimed in the plaint schedule properties during her lifetime and also for securing portion of the properties from defendants 2 and 3. The respondents herein were defendants 1 to 3 before the trial Court. Defendants had filed their written statements and objected to the relief claimed in the suit. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court had framed five issues for decision. They are as follows:"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the first defendant was illtreating her and drove her out from the house of the first defendant and deserted and neglected to pay the plaintiffs maintenance? 2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 250/- per month for the plaintiffs maintenance and Rs. 1,000/- per annum for her separate residence and garments? 3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the arrears of maintenance for a period of three years prior to the date of filing the suit amounting to Rs. 12,000/-? 4. Whether the first defendant has made a nominal sale deed of item No. 1 of the plaint schedule properties in favour of defendant 2 and the same is ineffective and is not binding on the plaintiff? 5. Whether the first defendant has gifted Item No. 2 of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant nominally in order to defraud the plaintiffs maintenance and further the said gift is ineffective and is not binding and inoperative against the plaintiff?"

( 3 ) THE Trial Court after elaborate discussion of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence of the parties to the Us, was pleased to decree the suit by its judgment and decree dated 23-1-1979. The order made by the Trial Court is as under:"13. In view of the findings recorded above, the plaintiff is found entitled to succeed in the suit and the following order is passed: plaintiffs suit is allowed and plaintiff to recover past maintenance of Rs. 3,600a and current and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month from the date of the suit from the 1st defendant and the right to receive this maintenance is made a charge on the plaint schedule Item Nos. 1 and 2. The prayer for declaration in respect of the alienations in favour of defendants 2 and 3 is rejected. Defendants 1 to 3 to pay costs of this suit to the plaintiff and bear their own. The Court fee payable in the case shall be paid by defendants 1 to 3. Send a copy of the decree to the Deputy commissioner, Bangalore, for effecting recovery of the Court fee payable in the case shall be paid by defendants 1 to 3. Send a copy of the decree to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, for effecting recovery of the Court fee from the defendants".

( 4 ) SINCE the decree was not complied by respondents 1 to 3, petitioner was constrained to file execution petition before the Court which had passed the judgment and decree and the said execution petition thereafter came to be transferred to th