BAPU GADGIL RAJARAM Vs. RAMA SHRI BAPU GADGIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates S/shri Kasliwal and Dixit for respective parties. Being an issue regarding interpretation of Section 60 (1) (i)of the Code of Civil Procedure and more particularly proviso to said sub - section, advocates S/shri S. C. Bora and R. R. Mantri have also voluntarily rendered assistance, as amicus curiae, in trying to interpret the said provision.

(2.) THE revision petition arises because on 19. 6. 1994, the Court of Civil judge, Junior Division, Bhusawal in Regular Darkhast No. 47/1990 ordered attachment from salary of judgment debtor/revision petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month.

(3.) MAJORITY of the facts in the matter are undisputed. The parties are husband and wife and husband is Government servant. Wife obtained a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,999/ - against the husband in Regular Civil suit No. 263/1989. Admittedly, this was a decree of payment in lieu of Stridhan items and not a decree for maintenance. Regular Darkhast No. 47/19990 was filed by wife for recovery of this amount and in August, 1990, the executing Court ordered attachment under Order 21 Rule 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 60 (1) (i) for attachment at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month from the salary payable to the husband. The amount was accordingly deposited with the executing court from January, 1991, and continuously for a period of twenty four months. In September, 1991, wife filed application for directing enhanced deduction at the rate of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. That application is yet undecided. Husband filed an application Exhibit 38 and prayed that after deduction for twenty four months, his salary is totally exempt from any further deduction by virtue of proviso to Section 60 (1) (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has also not issued such a declaration pursuant to request in application Exhibit 38.