P.AMUTHA Vs. GUNSEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the oder of dismissal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram in CMP No.1780 of 2020 in M.C.No.7 of 1990, dtd. 9/9/2021, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

(2.) The fact of the case is that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.7 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, in which maintenance of Rs.500.00was ordered. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.4000.00 from 11/1/2013. The respondent/husband has not paid the maintenance regularly and there is arrears of Rs.1,19,000.00. Now, the respondent/husband, who was working as Barber in Indian Military, was retired from the service in the year 2019 and he is receiving pension. Under these circumstances, the petitioner/wife filed a petition for attachment of pension for arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram on the ground that there is a bar under Sec. 60(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for attachment of pension by relying upon the Sec. 60(1)(g) of Civil Procedure Code, which is unsustainable. The bar under Sec. 60(1)(g) is not applicable to the case of maintenance. To support his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 2019 NearLaw(Bombay HC Nagpur) Online 443 (Bhagwant /vs/ Radhika). He further submitted that the maintenance allowance granted to the wife cannot be considered as a debt. Therefore, exemption under Sec. 11 of the Pension Act 1871 for attachment is also not attracted with regard to the maintenance allowance. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of the trial Court is unsustainable and pleaded to allow the Criminal Revision Petition.