The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of pension from attachment under Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 and Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the legal and moral obligation of a husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 of the Code.

Jaishree Thakur, J.

Crl. Misc. 22247 of 2017--For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 48 days in filing the revision is condoned.

Main case

1. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge order dated 3.3.2017 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Karnal, by which a application for interim maintenance filed by the respondent has been allowed and the respondent has been granted interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition along with litigation expenses. In brief, the facts are, that the petitioner and the respondent solemnized a marriage around forty years ago and out of this wedlock a female child was born. After the respondent was turned out of her matrimonial home, she started to reside with her daughter in Karnal. Having no source of income, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance. The respondent-wife alleged that she has no source of income, whereas the petitioner has retired from HUDA and has a pension, hence she would be entitled to receive maintenance. The petitioner contested the matter stating that the respondent had not come to Court with clean hands and in fact she had left the matrimonial home of her own accord. The District Judge Family Court, Karnal, held that the petitioner is liable to pay 50% of his pension received to his destitute wife as interim maintenance. Aggrieved against the said order the instant revision petition has been filed.

2. Mr. Virender Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the maintenance, as assessed, is on the higher side as the petitioner has a pension of Rs. 9,500 per month and has to maintain himself by paying for electricity, water and other commodities. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- had been deposited in the shape of a Fixed Deposit in favour of the respondent and apart from that he had given a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to her. It is submitted that he had given a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to his son-in-law for purchasing a plot in Delhi and the entire transactions had been met out of his retiral benefits. It is argued that apart from transferring funds, a house was purchased in the name of the respondent and their daughter Munni Devi and the petitioner had transferred the said house in favour of her daughter. It is argued that the petitioner has a meagre pension of Rs. 9,500 per month. It is also argued that the District Judge, Family Court, has erred in awarding 50% of the pension when in fact pension cannot be attached. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that condition warrants of arrest have been issued, vide order dated 12.9.2017, against the petitioner by the District Judge, Family Court, Karnal, during the pendency of the proceedings in the this Court, for not making payment of interim maintenance, under an application filed under Section 125(3) of the Code.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife has argued that the petitioner being the legally wedded husband of the respondent/wife, is under a legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife. It is argued that he is getting a pension of Rs. 9,500 per month and the respondent having no source of income is entitled to be maintained out of the said pension. He relies upon judgment rendered in Ram Kanvar v. M/s. Ram Richhpal Banarsi Dass, 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 719, wherein there was a challenge in the revision petition against an order passed by the Executing Court directing the Treasury Officer to remit the amount of two third pension of the judgment-debtor/petitioner till realization of the decretal amount. It is contended that pension can be attached to satisfy the maintenance amount due and payable to the respondent.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment relied upon.

5. An argument has been raised by the Coun