ORDER

Challenging the oder of dismissal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram in CMP No.1780 of 2020 in M.C.No.7 of 1990, dated 09.09.2021, the present Criminal Revision has been filed.

2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. She filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.7 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, in which maintenance of Rs.500/- was ordered. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.4000/- from 11.01.2013. The respondent/husband has not paid the maintenance regularly and there is arrears of Rs.1,19,000/-. Now, the respondent/husband, who was working as Barber in Indian Military, was retired from the service in the year 2019 and he is receiving pension. Under these circumstances, the petitioner/wife filed a petition for attachment of pension for arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram on the ground that there is a bar under Section 60(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition for attachment of pension by relying upon the Section 60(1)(g) of Civil Procedure Code, which is unsustainable. The bar under Section 60(1)(g) is not applicable to the case of maintenance. To support his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in 2019 NearLaw(Bombay HC Nagpur) Online 443 ( Bhagwant /vs/ Radhika). He further submitted that the maintenance allowance granted to the wife cannot be considered as a debt. Therefore, exemption under Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 for attachment is also not attracted with regard to the maintenance allowance. Under these circumstances, the dismissal of the trial Court is unsustainable and pleaded to allow the Criminal Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order of the Trial Court and submitted that the bar under Section 60(1)(g) of the Civil Procedure Code as well as Section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 are applicable to maintenance allowance also. Even in the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Judge quashed the attachment of pension. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and thus, pleaded to dismiss the Criminal Revision.

5. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband. She had filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.7 of 1990. Initially, maintenance of Rs.500/- was ordered. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.4000/- from 11.01.2013 and there is arrears of maintenance allowance of Rs.1,19,000/- . The respondent/husband,who was working as a Barber, retired from the Indian Military Service in the year 2019 and now receiving pension.

7. Now, the issue for consideration is whether the maintenance allowance granted to the wife can be attached in view of Bar under Section 60(1)(g) of Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of Pension Act 1871.

8. On consideration of the judgment of Bombay High Court, which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in paragraph 4 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Judge observed that the maintenance allowance granted to the wife cannot be considered as a debt and she is not a creditor. Hence, exemption under Section 11 cannot be granted to the husband. For better appreciation, it is reproduced as under :

" 4. Learned counsel shri P.K.Mishra for the applicant/husband pointed out section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and submitted that pensions cannot be attached. The said Section 11 is reproduced herein below :

"11. Exemption of pension from attachment. No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present inf