The court ruled that maintenance decrees are not debts under CPC Section 73, allowing the government to protect its claims pending determination of ongoing litigations.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The Union of India as a third party has approached this Court by way of the above revisions, challenging the order of the Trial Court in I.A. No.1 of 2020, I.A. No.743 of 2019 and I.A. No.489 of 2019 in I.A. No.363 of 2019 in O.S. No.466 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Salem.

2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the third respondent who was an employee under the Department of Post has misappropriated a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- for which he was suspended from his service and steps were initiated for recovering the money misappropriated by the employee. In the meantime, his wife and daughter filed a suit against the employee, viz., the 3^rd respondent seeking maintenance in O.S.No.466 of 2012. In the said suit, an ex-parte decree came to be passed and the respondents 1 and 2 sought to execute the same by filing Execution Petition by bringing the property of the 3^rd respondent for sale through Court auction.

3. In Execution Proceedings, the auction purchaser who bid for the property successfully also deposited a sum of Rs.15,25,000/- in Court and the 1^st respondent/wife of the employee, filed a petition for a payment of Rs.7,99,584/- in I.A.No.362 of 2019. The said Application was not opposed by her husband viz., the 3^rd respondent and consequently, the amount was withdrawn by the 1^st respondent. When a similar Application was filed by the 2^nd respondent/daughter of the 1^st and 3^rd respondent, the revision petitioner filed an Application objecting to the withdrawal and also seeking to implead itself.

4. The revision petitioner also filed an Application for claiming the amount due to the petitioner from the 3^rd respondent. The Trial Court dismissed all these Applications, as against which the present revision petitions have been filed.

5. I have heard Mr.G.Ilangovan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for R1 and R2. The 3^rd & 4^th respondents have chosen to stay away from the proceedings despite service of summons.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the decree obtained by the respondents 1 & 2 is clearly a collusive decree and the husband, 3^rd respondent, employee of the revision petitioner did not even choose to contest the proceedings and there were no matrimonial proceedings between the 1^st respondent and 3^rd respondent and all of them resided in the very same premises, which all clearly go to show that the decree was obtained only to defeat the rights of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel would therefore submit that if the remaining amount is also withdrawn by the daughter of the employee of the revision petitioner, then nothing would remain for the revision petitioner to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs.26,00,000/-. He would therefore seek for the revision petitions being allowed and the orders passed by the Trial Court to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Mr.J.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the decree is not a collusive decree and the property was also sold in Court auction, subject to an earlier mortgage and therefore, the petitioner can only proceed against the purchaser and not against the respondents. He would further submit that maintenance decree is not a debt and therefore, Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will not apply. He would further submit that the alleged amount liable to be paid by the 3^rd respondent is also not ascertained or determined as on date. Even according to the revision petitioner, the case has not only been filed against the 3^rd respon