Judgment : This revision petition is directed against the order in E.P.No.37 of 1986 in O.S.No.262 of 1977, passed by the District Munsif, Aruppukottai. This revision petition is directed against the order in E.P.No.37 of 1986 in O.P.No.262 of 1977, passed by the District Munsif, Aruppukottai. 2. Short facts are: One Ramasamy Naicker had filed the suit against the respondent for money and had obtained a decree. Execution was laid by his legal representatives against the respondent for realisation of the decree amount by arrest. That was resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980. After enquiry, the learned District Munsif, had held that the respondent was entitled to the benefits of Act 13of l980and dismissed the execu-tion petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the legal representatives have come forward with this revision petition. 3. Mr.N.Jayabalan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the 1st Petitioner is a widow and so, the debt due to her was exempted from the operation of the Act 13 of 1980 by virtue of Scc.l2(l)(i) of the said Act. He would further submit that on facts also, the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the original debt was in favour of Ramasamy Naicker, that only on his death, his legal representatives viz., the widow and children were impleaded as parties and that unless the original debt due to a widow, the exemption under Sec.l2(l)(i) of the Act, cannot be claimed. He would further submit that apart from the widow, there are other decree-holders and it was not as if the widow was solely entitled to the debt, and on this account, the exemption cannot be claimed. He would further submit that the execution was for arrest and irrespective of the operation of the Act 13 of 1980, unless means is proved, the execution proceedings is bound to fail. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. He would further submit that the execution was for arrest and irrespective of the operation of the Act 13 of 1980, unless means is proved, the execution proceedings is bound to fail. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. The relevant portion of Sec.l2(l) (i) of Act 13 of 1980 reads as follows: “Sec. 12: Certain debts and liabilities to be affected — Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following categories of debts and liabilities of a debtor, namely: .(1) any debt or debts payable on the 1st day of January, 1980 to- .(i) a widow —” . E.P. was filed in 1986. The debt referred to in that section does not make any distinction between a debt due originally or a debt due to the widow by virtue of her claim as legal representative of her deceased husband. In the absence of any such distinction, I do not propose to import any distinction. The object of the said exemption is obvious, namely, to benefit the widow to whom the debt was due. Taking that aspect into account and in the face of not mentioning of any distinction aforesaid, I am clear that the debt due to the widow whether the debt was original or whether the debt was due to her as legal representative of her deceased husband, to whom the debt was originally due, the exemption would come into play. 5. The further submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that there were many decree-holders apart from the widow and hence this exemption would not apply. Even in that case, the widow would be entitled to a certain share in the decree debt and to that extent, it is exempted. The order of the court below, not considering this aspect and exempting that portion of the debt due to the widow, cannot be sustained. 6. Regarding the claim that the respondent has got no means to pay, the court below had not adverted its attention to that aspect of the case, but had adverted its attention only on the question as to whether the respondent was entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 and on that finding only, the court below dismissed the petition. If the respondent was not entitled to claim the benefits of Act 13 of 1980, either because the debt due to the widow is exempted from the operation of the Act, or because of the evidence available in the court below, in either cases, unless it was shown that the respondent has no means to pay the decree debt, the execution petition cannot be dismissed. Further, I would like to mention that the certificate of the tahsildar regarding the income, ought not to have been looked into by the court below, since there is no provision in Act 13 of 1980 enabling the tahsildar to issue a certificate regarding the income. Only regarding the value of the property, he is authorised to issue a certificate by virtue of explanation to clauses (vi) and (vii) of Sec.3(d) of the Act. 7. In view of the above, for finding out the share of the widow and excluding it from the operation of Act 13 of 1980 and for finding out whether the respondent was entitled to the benefits of Act 13 of 1980 with regard to his remaining portion of the decree debt and for finding out whether the respondent has got means to pay the decree debt, the matter is remitted back to the court below. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for the purposes indicated above and for disposal according to law. The court below shall restore E.P.No.37 of 1986 and after enquiry on the above aspects, dispose it of according the law.