NORBERT EDWIN NUGENT Vs. MARJORY JULIA NUGENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred for decision : "Is the pay of an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department liable to attachment in execution of an order for maintenance and alimony passed by a civil Court?"

(2.) The question has arisen in connexion with an application made by one Norbert Edwin Nugent, an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department, who was the respondent in Matrimonial suit No. 3 of 1934. The petitioner in that suit was awarded the sum of Rs. 150 per mensem, and on 15 February 1985, this Court passed an ex parte order directing the Controller of Military Accounts, Northern Command, Rawalpindi, to deduct a sum of Rs. 150 per mensem from the pay of the respondent and to remit the same to this Court to be paid to the petitioner. The respondent thereupon presented an application to this Court praying that the order of 15 February attaching his salary be withdrawn. The learned Government Advocate, who appeared for the applicant, contended that the applicant being a person to whom the Indian Articles of War applied, his pay was not liable to attachment. Learned Counsel for the pensioner contended, on the other hand, that the applicant was not a person to whom the Indian Articles of War applied, that on the contrary his conditions of service and pay were governed by the Army Act of 1881, and that under the provisions of that Act and of the Civil Procedure Code his pay was attachable in execution of a civil Court decree.

(3.) The information on this point on record is meagre. Fuller particulars as to the conditions of service of the applicant could no doubt be obtained by reference to the Military authorities. Early in the hearing however it was intimated from the Bench, that it would not be necessary for the purposes of the reference to decide the question as to whether the Indian Articles of War or the Army Act governed the applicant's terms of service. In the result the argument that the Army Act applied was not developed; there was practically no citation or discussion of the statutory-provisions and authorities bearing upon the question and the learned Government Advocate was not invited to reply to the contention. In these circumstances I do not consider it expedient to express any opinion upon the matter which clearly raises questions of importance. The question referred may be answered without a decision upon the point.