BHAGWANT Vs. RADHIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel Shri P.K.Mishra for the applicant/husband and learned counsel Shri S.J.Kadu for the non-applicant/wife.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submitted that learned Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction by passing order of attachment of pension. He submitted that before retirement, the applicant/husband was getting salary of Rs.1,53,000/- per month and after retirement he is getting pension of Rs.72,000/- per month. He further submitted that the applicant/husband is not in a position to pay Rs.30,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance. Learned counsel pointing out Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 submitted that as per the said Section, pensions cannot be attached. He submitted that order of learned Magistrate directing the applicant/husband to pay interim maintenance at Rs.30,000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife is perverse one. He submitted that Rs.30,000/- as maintenance is exorbitant. Whereas, he submitted that at the most it should be at Rs.20,000/- per month. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant/husband submitted the learned Magistrate wrongly passed order below Exhibit 5 without giving an opportunity of hearing. Hence, he prayed to allow the present revision application.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri S.J.Kadu for the nonapplicant/wife submitted that pensions can be attached for payment of maintenance amount. He submitted that the applicant/husband is well settled person having sufficient means and is getting Rs.72,000/- per month as pension. He pointing out cross-examination of the applicant-husband submitted that the applicant/husband received Rs.20.00 lacs as pensionary benefits. He is residing at Amravati in his own house. He purchased a row house at Nagpur. The said admission made by the applicant/husband shows that the applicant/husband can pay maintenance at Rs.30,000/- per month to his wife. Nobody is dependent on him. Hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.