The Family Court can enforce maintenance orders through pension attachment, but recovery is limited to one year of arrears, emphasizing the social justice intent behind maintenance laws.

JUDGMENT :

(Harpreet Singh Brar, J.)

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 29.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurdaspur, whereby half of the amount lying in the pension account of the petitioner, as on the date of passing of the impugned order, was ordered to be attached in order to recover the maintenance amount, which has fallen in arrears.

2. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was solemnized on 31.03.2015 and two sons i.e. respondents No.1 & 2 were born out of the wedlock. However, soon after solemnisation of the marriage, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) [now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’)] seeking maintenance for themselves. Resultantly, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent No.3-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month to each of two minor sons as maintenance vide order dated 26.02.2016. Subsequently, upon non-payment of the maintenance amount, the respondents preferred an execution application on 16.02.2019 for recovery of the amount of arrears amounting to Rs.12,15,000/-. In the execution proceedings, it was observed that the petitioner has not paid a single penny to clear the maintenance amount, which has fallen in arrears. Correspondingly, learned Family Court, vide impugned order dated 29.07.2023, directed the attachment of half of amount lying in the pension account of the petitioner till further orders for the realisation of arrears of maintenance towards the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the impugned order dated 29.07.2023 is liable to be set aside since learned Family Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the execution application, as in the given case, the original order pertaining to maintenance was passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Because the maintenance was ordered to be paid by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, the respondents should have preferred the execution application before the same Court and not before the Family Court. Learned counsel further avers that as per Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 144(3) of BNSS), there is limitation period of 01 year for recovering the maintenance amount, which has fallen in arrears. Therefore, execution application for arrears of maintenance for a period beyond one year is not maintainable. Lastly, it is submitted that Section 60(1)(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) and Section 11 of The Pensions’ Act, 1871 (for short ‘Pension Act’) preclude the authorities from attaching pension for the execution of any decree and hence, the impugned order ought to be set aside.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record of the case with his able assistance.

5. The object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other spouse. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vimala (K.) Vs. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC