JUDGEMENT 1. This civil revision has been filed by objectors-petitioners challenging order dated 8.12.2006 by which the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, rejected their application for recall of the order of attachment of their property in Execution Case No. 6 of 2004. 2. The matter arises out of Matrimonial Case No. 7 of 1996, which was filed by Amit Kumar Sinha (opposite party no. 2) against his wife Chandra Kala Sinha (opposite party no.1) for dissolution of their marriage, which had taken place on 19.5.1994 according to Hindu rites and rituals. In the said matrimonial case Chandra Kala Sinha appeared and filed an application for interim maintenance and cost of litigation. The said application, on contest, was allowed by the learned court below on 9.10.1996 directing Amit Kumar Sinha to pay Rs. 500.00 as monthly maintenance to his wife Chandra Kala Sinha and also to pay her consolidated amount of Rs. 1,000.00 as cost of litigation. The said order was not challenged by Amit Kumar Sinha and he violated the said order due to which a huge amount became due. 3. The aforesaid facts and circumstances were considered by the learned court below on 18.10.2001, whereafter the court took sympathetic view in favour of Amit Kumar Sinha and directed him to pay Rs. 2,000.00 per month until the entire arrears are clear. The said order was also not complied by Amit Kumar Sinha and hence the learned court below vide its order dated 18.3.2004 dismissed Matrimonial Case no. 7 of 1996 in view of the two decisions of this court; one in case of Ghasiram Das vs. Srimati Arundhati Das and Another, reported in AIR 1994 Orissa 15 and the other in case of Bani W/o Parkash Singh vs. Parkash Singh, reported in AIR 1996 Punjab and Haryana 175. The court also held that Chandra Kala Sinha was entitled to file an execution case for recovery of the entire amount due. The said order also does not appear to have been challenged by Amit Kumar Sinha. 4. Accordingly, Chandra Kala Sinha filed Execution Case No. 6 of 2004 in view of the aforesaid order of the matrimonial case and in that case she gave the de- tails of the properties of Amit Kumar Sinha. The said order also does not appear to have been challenged by Amit Kumar Sinha. 4. Accordingly, Chandra Kala Sinha filed Execution Case No. 6 of 2004 in view of the aforesaid order of the matrimonial case and in that case she gave the de- tails of the properties of Amit Kumar Sinha. In the said execution case also repeated orders of the learned court below were disobeyed by Amit Kumar Sinha and hence the learned court below passed an order of attachment of the said property for recovery of the dues to which Chandra Kala Sinha was fully entitled. 5. It was only thereafter that the parents of Amit Kumar Sinha, namely Shashi Bhushan Prasad @ Gopal Prasad and Smt. Ahilya Devi, who are petitioners in this civil revision, filed an objection application for recall of order of attachment in the executing court on 9.8.2005 claiming that the execution case was not maintainable and also that the property which was sought to be attached was their exclusively purchased property and their son Amit Kumar Sinha had no concern with it and thus for recovery of dues against Amit Kumar Sinha the exclusive property of his parents cannot legally be attached. 6. To the said objection application Chandra Kala Sinha filed a rejoinder on 20.4.2006 claiming that the execution case was fully maintainable as it was filed in view of order dated 18.3.2004 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 7 of 1996 and the said order having never been challenged had attained finality. So far the property under attachment is concerned, she claimed that it was an ancestral property and Amit Kumar Sinha had right and title over the said property and hence the amount due was legally realizable from the sale proceed of the said property, as Amit Kumar Sinha was clearly a judgment debtor. 7. The learned court below considered the matter in detail and found that the objectors had not brought any material on record to show that the properties described by Chandra Kala Sinha in her execution petition were their exclusively purchased property and that the judgment- debtor had no concern with it. Hence the said objection was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 8.12.2006, which is under challenge in this civil revision. 8. Hence the said objection was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 8.12.2006, which is under challenge in this civil revision. 8. The petitioners have not produced any copy of the sale deeds alongwith the civil revision or with any of their affidavits etc. but learned counsel for the petitioners has claimed that petitioner no. 1 had purchased 1 Katha 1 Dhur of land by registered deed dated 26.7.1960, whereas petitioner no. 2 had also purchased 1 Katha and 1 Dhur of land by another registered deed dated 26.7.1960 and hence the property under attachment is their exclusively purchased property, which cannot be legally attached for recovery of the dues against their son Amit Kumar Sinha. Learned counsel for the petitioners specifically stated that the said property was purchased from the salary of petitioner no. 1, who was employed in Railways, but according to their own claim petitioner no. 1 was appointed in the year 1960 and had retired from the Railway Job in the year 2000. In the said circumstances it is quite apparent that the said property even according to the claim of the petitioners, was purchased at the time when petitioner no. 1 was just employed or was to be employed in the Railways, hence there is no question of petitioners purchasing the said property from the fund collected by the petitioners, out of salary of petitioner no. 1, specially when the petitioners had two son and six daughters to maintain. The property said to have been purchased by the petitioners is clearly a joint family property in the light of settled principles of law that a Hindu family has to be assumed to be a joint family unless contrary is proved. 9. Furthermore, the petitioners have failed to show that the land/plot under attachment is the same, which was purchased by them in the year 1960, hence in both the circumstances if the land under attachment is not the same which was purchased in the year 1960 or even if the land in question is the same, the objectors claim cannot legally be entertained in view of the aforesaid facts. 10. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. 10. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed with a direction to the learned court below to proceed with the said execution case so that the entire dues and arrears of maintenance awarded to Chandra Kala Sinha is paid.