SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(AP) 341

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.A.SWAMI
In Re: Yerasuri Lakshminarayana Murthy - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-85

Salary can be considered as movable property and can be attached for enforcement of maintenance decree under S. 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

Headnote:

Attachment of Salary - Maintenance Decree - The court held that salary can be attached as movable property under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enforcement of maintenance decree.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to revise the order of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Visakapatnam attaching the salary for not paying maintenance according to the decree in M. C. No. 11 of 1983. The petitioner contended that salary cannot be attached as movable property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no illegality in the order and held that the salary can be attached as movable property under S. 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C. for enforcement of the maintenance decree. The court dismissed the revision and ordered the pending case to be expedited for final hearing.

Issues: Enforcement of maintenance decree and attachment of salary under S. 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. and held that the expression 'movable property' includes salary, which can be attached for enforcement of the maintenance decree.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the pending case was ordered to be expedited for final hearing.

K. AMARESWARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under S. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to revise the order of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Visakapatnam attaching the salary of the petitioner for not paying the maintenance according to the decree in M. C. No. 11 of 1983. I do not find any illegality in the order. Mr. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under S. 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C. only movable property can be attached and sold but the salary is not movable property which can be sold and therefore the salary cannot be attached. I am unable to agree with this contention. S. 125 Cr. P. C. is designed to provide maintenance to a party who is unable to support herself or himself. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the person against whom the decree is passed to comply with the decree. S. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. provides for enforcement of the decree and the said section says that any movable property can be attached. The expression movable property must be given wide interpretation. In my opinion the salary cannot be excluded from the category of movable property mentioned in S. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. This is also the view taken by a learned single Judge in Ahmed Pasha v. Wajid Unnissa Wajeeda Begum (1983) 1 APLJ (HC) 42 : (1983 Cri LJ 479 ). The revision is, therefore dismissed.

( 2 ) IT is represented that Crl. R. C. 192 of 1985 filed against the order in M. C. 11 of 1983 is still pending. Post Crl. R. C. 192 of 1985 for final hearing as expeditiously as possible.

( 3 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top