Future salaries can be attached for recovering maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they constitute moveable property per the General Clauses Act.

1. This is a petition under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the orders passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 1550 / 92, 155/92 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 S.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 / 88 filed by them under S.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. There fore, 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 form 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 these 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 'moveable property' within the meaning of the definition of the term given in the Indian Penal Code and was the mode of recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance was prescribed by S.125 (3) itself, the provisions contained in S.421 of he 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 S.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 of 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, 1982 Mah LJ 859. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on Ahmed Pasha v. Wajid Unissa , 1983 CriLJ 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, 1982 Mah LJ 859. In that case, the husband had failed to pay the arrears and the salary of the petitioner before that Court was