1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

:05.04.2022

PRONOUNCED ON :13.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.(NPD).No.1262 of 2014

Saraswathi

... Petitioner

vs.

Aruchamy

... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure

Code, praying to set aside the fair and final orders dated 25.01.2012 passed

in E.P.No.93 of 2011 in O.S.No.520 of 2009, on the file of the District

Munsif Court, Udumalpet and the allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner

:Mr.R.Nalliyappan

For Respondent

:No Appearance

O R D E R

The revision is filed against dismissal of E.P.No.93 of 2011 on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2

2. The revision petitioner filed a suit for maintenance against

her husband/respondent herein. When the suit was pending, the same was

referred to Lok Adalat and the matter was compromised. A lok adalat

award was passed on 05.07.2011, whereunder the respondent/husband

agreed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) per

month as maintenance to the petitioner/wife.

3. The suit appeared to have been filed on 15.10.2009 and the

lok adalat award was passed on 05.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner

herein filed execution petition in E.P.No.93 of 2011 for execution of the

award. He prayed for recovery of Rs.47,500/- towards the arrears of the

maintenance amount from the date of the suit namely 15.10.2009 to

15.06.2011. The said execution petition was resisted by the respondent on

the ground that there was no agreement to pay the arrears of maintenance

from the date of suit to the date of award. The executing Court after

perusing the terms of compromise recorded in lok adalat award came to the

conclusion that there was no decree for payment of arrears of maintenance

from the date of suit to the date of award and consequently dismissed the

execution petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the wife/revision petitioner has

come up with this instant revision petition.

5. Heard Mr.R.Nalliyappan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. Though the respondent was served nobody has entered

appearance on behalf of the respondent and there was no representation for

the respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the lok adalat award says that the respondent/husband agreed to pay

Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance. It should be presumed that he agreed

to pay only from the date of plaint and hence, the executing Court ought to

have allowed the execution petition.

7. I have perused the records, the relevant clause of the award

runs as follows:

“1. After discussion before, lok adalat, the

husband/defendant agreed to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees

two thousand five hundred only) per month as

maintenance to his wife the plaintiff herein who has

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4

agreed to receive the same as monthly maintenance.

2. The parties to bear their our costs;

3. The plaintiff is entitled to refund of entire

court fee paid on the plaint has usual commission as per

the rules;

4. If the defendant fails to pay the agreed

maintenance amount, the plaintiff is entitled to have

charge over the suit properties.”

8. A reading of the award makes it clear that the husband

agreed to pay maintenance to wife at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month.

However, it was not mentioned in the award from which date, the husband

is liable to pay. When husband agreed to a portion of a suit claim, it only

means that he agrees to pay from the date of plaint. If he wants to restrict

his liability there should be a specific clause in the compromise restricting

his liability to pay maintenance only from the date of