K. BHASKARA RAO Vs. K. SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the husband-judgment-debtor. The respondents are wife and children. They obtained a decree for maintenance and in execution thereof they filed an application under O. 21, r. 48 Civil P.C. and 2/3rds of the salary of the petitioner has been attached in execution of the decree. As siling the correctness thereof this civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri Seetharama Rao, the Id. counsel for the petitioner, contends that under s. 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (for short 'the Code') the salary of the petitioner is liable for attachment only to the extent mentioned thereunder. Contribution towards the family pension and provident fund to the total extent of Rs. 104 is a statutory deduction which the employer is deducting and therefore it is liable to be exempted from the attachment of the salary of the petitioner. After deducting the same then 2/3rds of the salary alone is liable for attachment. In this case the court below had not examined the matter from this perspective and accordingly it committed an error of jurisdiction. I am unable to agree. Sec. 60(1) postulates that the properties mentioned thereunder are liable to attachment in execution of the decree. Exemptions have been provided in the proviso thereto and the relevant clause is cl. (i-a) which mentions that one-third of the salary in execution of any decree for maintenance is exempted In this case there is no exemption granted to any amount paid by the employee towards the contribution made by him pursuant to any statutory notification. Under cl. (1) any allowance forming part of the emoluments of any servant of the Government or of any servant of a railway company or local authority which the appropriate Government may by notification in the Official Gazette declare to be exempt from attachment alone is liable for exemption. Admittedly the petitioner is not a Government servant and no statutory notifications has been issued exempting the payment of contribution towards provident fund. Under these circumstances cl. (1) of proviso to s. 60(1) of the Code is not applicable to the facts in this case though the Id. counsel for the petitioner sought to rely on the same in support of his contention. Accordingly, I hold that the contribution made by the petitioner towards the family pension and provident fund to the total extent of Rs. 104 is not liable to exemption since his salary is admittedly Rs. 876. 2/3rds thereof is liable to attachment towards the execution of the decree. From this perspective the order passed by the court below cannot be said to be in excess of its jurisdiction or nullity by material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

(3.) The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Revision dismissed.