R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless (Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 2003 SC 4664).

2. An execution court has ordered detention of a judgment debtor aged 60 years in civil prison for a period of three months in execution of a decree for payment of money. The legality and propriety of that order is challenged in this appeal.

3. The appellant is the third respondent in O.P.No.187 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. It is a case filed by the first respondent herein against her husband and his parents for return of the gold ornaments belonging to her or the value of the ornaments. O.P.No.187 of 2011 was decreed on 26.08.2015 by the Family Court, Kollam allowing the first respondent to realise from them 296 grams of gold ornaments or their market value. Thereafter, the first respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.28 of 2016 in the Family Court, Chavara for execution of the aforesaid decree by sale of the property belonging to the judgment-debtors and also by the arrest and detention of the first and the second judgment-debtors in civil prison. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the first respondent filed E.A.No.33 of 2017 for issuing warrant of arrest against the first and the second judgment-debtors, who are her husband and his father, and for their detention in civil prison. The execution court issued notice to the first and the second judgment-debtors under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Though the first and the second judgment-debtors entered appearance, they did not file any objection or counter statement in E.A.No.33 of 2017. The decree holder was examined as PW1 but no evidence was adduced by the first and the second judgment-debtors. After closing the evidence of the decree holder on 28.03.2018, the execution court adjourned the case to 21.04.2018 for the evidence of the judgment-debtors. On 21.04.2018, the judgment-debtors were absent and there was no representation for them and therefore, the court closed the evidence. On the same day, the execution court passed the following order:-

“Heard. It is found that JD has sufficient means and he is wilfully evading payment. Hence issue arrest warrant to JD.”

On 11.06.2018, the second judgment-debtor was arrested and produced before the execution court. Then, the court passed the following order:

“2nd Judgment debtor was arrested and produced. No amount paid. Hence 2nd Judgment debtor is sent to Civil prison for 3 months. EA.68/18 allowed. Rs.4,50,000/- in the RD Account of 3rd judgment debtor with KSFE, Chakkuvally branch ordered to be attached. Issue attachment order. For return of attachment report on 30.06.2018.”

The appellant, who is the third judgment-debtor and who is the wife of the second judgment-debtor, has filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid order of the execution court sending her husband to civil prison for a period of three months.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the first respondent/decree holder and perused the records in the execution proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the second judgment-debtor was ordered to be detained in civil prison by the execution court without a proper finding regarding his means to pay the decree debt and his neglect to pay the same. Learned counsel would also contend that the execution court had already proceeded against the property of the judgment debtors and in the absence of any special circumstances, the court should not have ordered execution of the decree by the arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison. Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent/decree holder would contend that the first and the second judgment-debtors did not file any objection to the application E.A.No.33 of 2017 and that they did not raise any plea of no means and therefore, the execution