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

2000 (3) Crimes 427
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.G. Agarwal. J.
Hyder Ali - Petitioner
versus
Mustt Ragia Begum - Opp. Party
Civil Revision No. 72 of 1993
Decided on 16-9-1999
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.J. Saikia, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party: None.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no bar for attachment of salary under Section 125(3). Cr. P.C.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125(3) - Order awarding maintenance to wife - Since July, 1985 maintenance was not paid, on prayer of wife warrants of arrest and order of attachment of salary of petitioner issued - Revision Contention that maintenance for period preceding one year could not be recovered and attachment of salary for recovery of arrears was not permissible - Limitation regarding recovery of maintenance arrears not exceeding one year was in respect of attachment of property only and not, applicable so for sentencing of husband to imprisonment - No bar for attachment of salary - Provision is to be given liberal construction Attachment of salary ordered to pay maintenance was permissible. (Paras 5 & 9)

       Result: Revision dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

P.G. Agarwal, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed on 7-11-1992 and directions for attachment of salary of the petitioner passed in case No. 82/81, under Section 125. Cr. P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. On 24-10-1981, the respondent Mustt. Ragia Begum filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. claiming for maintenance for herself and her minor children. As the petitioner husband did not contest the proceeding in spite of receipt of notice, the learned Trial Court by Order dated 13-1-1982 directed the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 2.001- to the applicant Ragia Begum.

3. As per the order the amount of maintenance was deducted from the salary of the petitioner who is the Government servant and from 1982 to 1985 respondent was paid the maintenance by deducting the amount from the salary. Since July, 1985 maintenance was not paid and on the prayer of the respondent warrant of arrest and fresh order of attachment of salary of the petitioner were issued and hence the present revision.

4. In this petition, the petitioner has made certain statements regarding divorce, etc. which cannot be considered and decided in this revision. The petitioner, if so advised may take recourse to Section 127. Cr. P.C.

5. The first contention raised before me is that under Section 125(3). Cr. P.C. amount of maintenance for period exceeding one year cannot be recovered, in view of the specific provision of Section 125(3). Cr. P.C. it is well settled that when an application of recovery of arrears of maintenance is made for a period of more than one year, only such arrears as related to one year prior to the date of filing of an application can be recovered by an attachment of property and this limitation is in respect of attachment of property only. It is not applicable so far sentencing of husband for default to imprisonment, for recovery of arrear due is concerned. I have pursued the order sheet and find that from 1985 to till filing of this revision petition, the petitioner appeared before the Court on each and every date and on each occasion prayed for recovery of the maintenance granted to her. It was the revision petitioner and party, who delayed the matter by remaining absent or avoiding the process of the Court. The warrant of attachment of salary, etc., was stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 24-2-1993. The amount due from 24-2-1993 till today is recoverable and the respondent-wife shall be entitled to the same. It is well settled that any stay or stay granted by the Court cannot act adversely against the party and particularly against the deserted wife. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a Government servant and the issuance of warrant of attachment of salary for the purpose of the recovery of arrear of maintenance is not permissible under the law. In support of his submission, reference has been made to a decision in the case of Ali. Khan v. Smt. Hazambi1. There is no specific bar for attachment of salary under Section 125(3), Cr. P.C. The provision under Section 125, Cr. P.C. are in the nature of social welfare measure such as speedy relief to the needy, i.e., deserted wife, minor child as well as parents etc. In the case of Yerasuri Lakshminarayana Murty2, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows:

"Section 125 is designed to provide maintenance to the wife who is unable to support herself. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the person against whom the decree for payment is passed to comply with the decree. Section 125(3) provides for enforcement of the decree by attachment of any movable property. Movable property must be given a wide interpretation and. salary cannot be excluded from its category. Therefore, salary of the husband can be attached under Section 125(3) for payment of maintenance to the wife.

6. In the instant case, the wife has been deser

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

SupremeToday

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