P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) C. R. P. No. 1619/98 is filed by the revision petitioner-wife aggrieved by an order dated 12-9-1997 passed in E. P. No. 48/96 in O. S. No. 23/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Addanki. C. R. P. No. 4782/97 is filed by the revision petitioner-husband aggrieved by an order dated 12-9-1997 passed in E. P. No. 17/91 in O. S. No. 23/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Addanki. Since, both the revision petitions are inter-connected, they are being disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows : the revision petitioner-wife in C. R. P. No. 1619/98 filed E. P. No. 48/96 in O. S. No. 23/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Addanki along with her daughter for execution seeking relief of realisation of the E. P. amount by way of attachment of the amount of Rs. 1,41,612/- lying in the Court deposit, which represents the surplus sale proceeds realised by sale of the charged property. The revision petitioner-husband in C. R. P. No. 4782/97 filed E. A. No. 83/96 in E. P. No. 17/91 in O. S. No. 23/84 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Addanki, praying the relief of issuance of cheque for Rs. 1,41,612/ -. For the purpose of convenience, the wife will be referred to as decree-holder and the husband will be referred to as judgment-debtor. ( 3 ) THE contention of the decree-holder is that she filed a suit in O. S. No. 23/84 against the judgment-debtor for the relief of maintenance and the said suit was decreed on 28-12-1984 creating charge over the suit schedule property and she had filed E. P. No. 17/91 for recovery of arrears of maintenance and in the said E. P. the charged property was sold in Court auction and the surplus sale proceeds were deposited into Court and thus, she is entitled to recover her arrears of maintenance from the said surplus sale proceeds lying in Court deposit and that her charge over the suit schedule property had been extinguished in view of the sale held in E. P. No. 17/91 and hence, the stand taken by the decree-holder was that from out of the surplus sale proceeds lying in Court deposit, she is entitled to recover the amount. The judgment-debtor had taken a stand that the decree-holder is not entitled to seek attachment of the surplus sale proceeds lying in Court deposit and the remedy available to the decree-holder is to bring the decree schedule property for sale if the auction-purchaser does not pay the arrears of maintenance and the contention that the charge over the property got extinguished cannot be sustained. The Court below after detailed discussion and placing reliance on Annapragada Venkata Lakshmi Ramanam-ma v. Annapragada Sitaramanjaneya Sarma, 1977 (2) APLJ 136 , had arrived at a conclusion that the charge created in the suit schedule property does not extinguish in spite of its sale in Court auction for realisation of the arrears of maintenance due to the decree-holder and it continues, and as such the only remedy available to the decree-holder is to proceed against the charged property being in the hands of the auction- purchaser. The Court below also had expressed the view that the decree-holder cannot lay any claim over the surplus sale proceeds lying in the Court and the only remedy of the decree-holder to satisfy the future arrears of maintenance will be to proceed against the charged property lying in the hands of the auction-purchaser and ultimately, the Court below came to the conclusion that the E. P. filed by the decree-holder is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the wife had preferred C. R. P. No. 1619/98 on the ground that the judgment-debtor has no right to claim the surplus sale proceeds lying in Court deposit on certain irrelevant grounds. ( 4 ) MRS. K. Malleswari, the learned counsel representing the judgment-debtor-husband had strenuously contended that the cheque petition filed by the husband should have been ordered and the impugned order shows that the dismissal of the cheque petition is totally on irrelevant grounds. ( 4 ) MRS. K. Malleswari, the learned counsel representing the judgment-debtor-husband had strenuously contended that the cheque petition filed by the husband should have been ordered and the impugned order shows that the dismissal of the cheque petition is totally on irrelevant grounds. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on Annapragada Ventaka Lakshmi Ramanamma s case (supra) and had contended that the charge created in a maintenance decree will not come to an end or will not be extinguished by the sale of the property in a Court auction since the charge always runs with the property and the remedy available to the decree-holder-wife is to bring the property to sale for the purpose of recovery of arrears of maintenance as and when such arrears have to be recovered by the decree-holder-wife. ( 5 ) SRI Srinivas, the learned counsel representing the decree-holder-wife had vehemently contended that if such an interpretation is given, maintenance decree-holder will be put to serious suffering. The learned counsel also had submitted that even on that date, the decree-holder-wife was entitled to recover some more amounts and even for that purpose, the wife cannot be driven to get another E. P. No doubt, the learned counsel did not seriously dispute the proposition that in the case of a charged property, by sale of such property, automatically the charge will come to an end or will be extinguished. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing both the counsel at length and after perusing the material on record, as far as the facts are concerned, there is no much controversy between the parties. The crucial question that has to be decided in both the C. R. Ps. is whether the decree-holder-wife holding a maintenance decree is entitled to the surplus sale proceeds lying in the Court deposit? ( 7 ) EVEN the learned counsel for the husband-judgment-debtor had not seriously disputed the right of the wife-decree-holder to proceed against the property. However, as far as the sale proceeds are concerned, the learned counsel representing the husband-judgment-debtor had seriously contended that this aspect had been, in fact, well discussed in a decision of this Court reported in Annapragada Venkata Lakshmi Ramanamma s case (supra) wherein it was observed :"it cannot be argued that the effect of the sale of property satisfy the claim for the arrears extinguishes the charge completely once for all. It is only a sale to satisfy the particular claims for arrears and not to satisfy the maintenance decree as a whole and the auction-purchaser gets the property only subject to the charge. It is on account of this rule of charge that the same property which was already sold in the execution if maintenance decree can be brought to sale by the decree-holder whenever maintenance becomes due. But if there are other properties of the judgment-debtor subject to the charge, the decree-holder can proceed against those properties for realising her dues and in the event of any shortfall or deficiency, then the decree-holder can proceed against the properties which were in the hands of the first auction-purchaser". ( 8 ) IN K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder, AIR 1998 SC 3118 , it was held that a charge is an obligation to make payment out of the property specified. In V. S. V. Thangavelu Mudaliar v. G. Thirumalswami Mudaliar, AIR 1956 Madras 67 it was held that a charge created by a decree does not come within the scope of Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and it cannot be a charge created either by act of parties or by operation of law and it is altogether a different category not contemplated by Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence, an auction-purchaser cannot take advantage of his purchase of the property sold in enforcement of the charge created by the decree to the detriment of the other charge created by the same decree but which is still subsisting and which is yet to be enforced by the party in whose favour it was created. In Sri Rajah Mommadevara Naganna Naidu Bahadur Jamindar Garu (died) v. Sri Rao Janardhana Krishna Rangarao Bahadur Jamindar Garu, AIR 1959 AP 622 , it was held that Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act is restricted in its operation to two categories of charges, namely those created by act of parties and those created by operation of law and charges created by decrees of Courts are not included and such charges are not charges created by operation of law. In T. Rama Seshagiri Rao v. Venkamalakumari, AIR 1982 AP 107 , it was held that when a person is trying to execute a maintenance decree with a charge, he is really trying to enforce a charge, as such. In the Transfer of Property Act (2001 Edition by me) at page No. 548 while dealing with a charge on immovable property for payment of money. I had expressed "charge on immovable property for payment of money by one person to another can be created by act of parties and operation of law". Here, in the present case, there is no controversy between the parties relating to the enforcement of a maintenance decree, but the dispute is regarding the surplus sale proceeds lying in the Court deposit. It may be, that the decree-holder-wife feels it more convenient to attach this cash lying in Court deposit instead of proceeding against the charged property by putting further execution in this regard. However, this question already had fallen for consideration in Annapragada Venkata Lakshmi Ramanamma s case (surpa) and clear opinion had been expressed that charge will not be extinguished and the maintenance decree can be further executed by proceeding against such charged property. In the light of the said legal provision, the only conclusion this Court can arrive is that the decree-holder-wife is entitled to proceed against the charged property since she has a right to enforce the maintenance decree against the said property. As far as the surplus sale proceeds are concerned, the judgment-debtor-husband alone is entitled to the said surplus sale proceeds. It is not in serious dispute that the dismissal of the cheque petition was on certain irrelevant grounds. In fact, both the parties have been agitating the matter on the ground that the property belonged to the judgment-debtor and had been sold in execution of a maintenance decree. When that is the position, the only question that has to be decided is relating to the entitlement of the surplus sale proceeds lying in Court deposit and once the right of the decree-holder-wife is negatived in relation to the surplus sale proceeds, necessarily the judgment-debtor-husband is entitled to the said surplus sale proceeds. Hence, in my considered opinion, the dismissal of the cheque petition filed by the judgment-debtor-husband is not in accordance with law and such an order was passed on an erroneous impression. Hence, in my considered opinion, the dismissal of the cheque petition filed by the judgment-debtor-husband is not in accordance with law and such an order was passed on an erroneous impression. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that C. R. P. No. 1619/98 filed by the decree-holder-wife is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismssed. Whereas, the C. R. P. No. 4782/97 filed by the husband as against an order dismissing the cheque petition deserves to be allowed. It is needless to mention that since the right of the decree-holder-wife is not extinguished, she is at liberty to proceed against the charged property for the arrears of maintenance, if any. ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case. C. R. P. No. 1619/98 is dismissed and C. R. P. No. 4782/97 is allowed. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the close relationship of the parties, no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.