JUDGMENT - B.C. GADGIL, J.:---These two matters, though unconnected with each other, can be conveniently decided by a common judgment, as a similar controversy arises in both of them.

2. Before considering the dispute between the parties. I would like to state briefly the relevant facts in both the litigations. Civil Revision Application No. 744 of 1982 arises from an order passed in Special Darkhast No. 121 of 1979 that the amount of maintenance claimed in that darkhast should be recovered from the judgment-debtor. This darkhast was filed by the decree-holder-wife on the basis of a decree dated 31-7-1967 passed in Special Suit No. 44 of 1966. Maintenance of Rs. 100/- per month has been granted to the wife. In Darkhast No. 121 of 1979 the husband resisted the execution on the ground that after the passing of the decree the husband and wife (viz. the judgment-debtor hand the decree holder) had resumed cohabitation and that on this count the decree for maintenance had become unenforceable. This contention was rejected by the executing Court and hence the husband judgment debtor filed a revision.

3. Second Appeal No. 56 of 1983 is filed by the husband against an order for recovery of ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document