This is wholly an unsustainable order which is challenged in this revision petition. The order of arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor has been made by the learned Munsif in execution proceedings in which the decree-holder is seeking to recover Rs. 7939-76.

2. The only evidence which is produced on behalf of the decree-holder was the evidence of the husband of the decree-holder. It is true that the judgment-debtor himself claimed the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. He has undoubtedly failed to establish that he is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of that Act. That did not, however, necessarily mean that an order of arrest and detention in civil prison must necessarily follow.

3. There is no basis of the evidence of P. W. 1, that the income of the judgment-debtor was Rs. 70,000. On what basis this figure has been given by the witness is not stated; nor has it been clarified by the learned counsel who appears in this court.

4. The District Munsif has taken the view that because the judgment-debtor is paying meagre amounts he is neglecting to pay. It appears that the learned District Munsif made the order of detention because of the evidence that the inc