JUDGMENT - M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---This is a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 1550 of 1992, 1551 of 1992 and one unregistered Criminal Revision Application dated 10-2-1993. The proceeding raises really a vitally important question of law which pertains to the right of recovery of maintenance allowance by a person who is entitled to maintenance allowance under the provisions of section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by attachment of the salary of the person who is subjected to order of payment of maintenance allowance.

2. Petitioners are the minor sons of respondent No. 1. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 139 of 1988 filed by them under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they had applied for maintenance allowance from their father, the respondent No. 1. The matter came to be decided on 20-6-1989. The respondent No. 1 had committed defaults in payment of the maintenance allowance. Therefore, three consecutive recovery proceedings were filed before the learned Magistrate for recovery of the arrears of maintenance allowance for the periods from 2-11-1988 to 30-6-1989, 14-2-1990 to 31-10-1990 and from 1-11-1990 to 31-12-1990 respectively. Despite the appearance of the respondent in those proceedings, he failed to deposit the amounts in Court or to pay the same to the petitioners. Therefore, three applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners for seeking attachment of the salary of the respondent. The said applications were granted and warrants of attachment were accordingly issued. Thereafter, the respondent filed the three revision petitions in question and they were decided on 10-2-1993 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a common judgment. All the three revision applications were allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that future accrual of the salary of the respondent was not a `moveable property' within the meaning of the definition of the term given in the Indian Penal Code and as the mode of recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance was prescribed by section 125(3) itself, the provisions contained in section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would have to be adhered to for the purposes of recovery of the arrears. In short, it was held that as the mode of recovery was prescribed to be the mode that was prescribed for levying of the fines and as section 421(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure provided only for attachment of moveable property, the future salary, which was not a moveable property within the meaning of the term, could not be attached. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had, in doing so, adopted the reasoning which was assigned in (Jagoo Sarju v. Ramkali Jagoo and others)1, 1982 Mh.L.J. 859. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on (Ahmed Pasha v. Wajid Unissa)2, 1983 Cr.L.J. 479, in support of the proposition that the future salary could be attached for recovery of arrears. In accordance with the view so taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he had allowed all the three revision petitions and had set aside the orders passed by the learned Magistrate directing the issuance of the warrants for attachment of salary.

3. It must be said to the credit of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in deciding the point in question, he had referred to the latest ruling on the point in Jaggu Sarju v. Ramkali and others, 1982 Mh. L.J. 859. In that case, the husband had failed to pay the arrears and the salary of the petitioner before that Court was sought to be attached to the tune of Rs. 5450. This Court held that for recovery of the amount due under an order of maintenance, the Court had to follow the procedure laid down in section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of fine. The future salary of a person, which was not yet a tangible moveable property in his possession, could not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document