The court affirmed that salary attachment in execution of a decree must comply with statutory limits, emphasizing the binding nature of Lok Adalat awards.

J U D G M E N T

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha for attachment of his salary in execution of a decree.

2. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She has obtained a decree against the petitioner for return of 446 grams of her gold ornaments or realisation of the value of the ornaments from him. The decree is based on the compromise entered into between the parties in the Lok Adalat conducted on 15.11.2014. The first respondent filed E.P.No.24 of 2015 for execution of the decree. As per Ext.P3 order, the Family Court directed that an amount of Rs.9,120/- shall be attached from the monthly salary of the petitioner for a period of 24 months.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent. The petitioner himself appeared before the court and we have also heard him in person.

4. The petitioner has got a plea that he signed the compromise in the Adalat without understanding the contents of it. The petitioner has not challenged the award of the Lok Adalat in this writ petition. The award has become final. Where an award is made by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of the civil court and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Art.226 and/or Art.227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds (See State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh : AIR 2008 SC 1209 and Bharvagi Constructions v. Muthayam Reddy: AIR 2017 SC 4428).

5. The only other plea raised by the petitioner is that his take home salary is Rs.16,447/- and therefore, the court below should not have ordered attachment of an amount of Rs.9,120/- from his salary and the amount ordered to be attached is beyond the permissible limit.

6. The petitioner is working as an Attendant/Peon in an aided school. Ext.P2 salary certificate dated 31.07.2017 issued by the Headmistress of the school contains the following particulars:

Deductions Basic Pay : 24000 SLI : 300/-

DA : 3360 GIS : 400/- HRA : 1000 LIC : 463/- Total : 28360/- PF : 4000/-

Co-op Recovery : 6750/-

--------------

11913/-

Net Salary : 16447/-

7. Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') provides that salary to the extent of first one thousand rupees and two third of the remainder cannot be attached in execution of any decree other than a decree for maintenance. As per Clause (l), any allowance forming part of the emoluments, as notified by the Government in the official gazette to be exempted from attachment, is not attachable. Explanation II to Section 60(1) of the Code states that in Clauses (i) and (ia) "salary" means the total monthly emoluments, excluding any allowance declared exempt from attachment under the provisions of Clause (l), derived by a person from his employment whether on duty or on leave.

8. The gross monthly salary of the petitioner is Rs.28,360/-. After deductions, his net salary comes to Rs.16,447/-. An amount of Rs.300/- is being deducted towards State Life Insurance, Rs.400/- is being deducted towards Group Insurance Scheme and Rs.463/- is being deducted as premium payable to Life Insurance Corporation.

9. Clause (kb) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code states that money payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the judgment debtor is exempt from attachment. What is exempted under Clause (kb) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code is the amount payable under a policy of insurance. Evidently the amount which is collected by deduction is not liable to be attached, but not the deductions to be made towards the policy (See Sasidharan v. K.C.T.S.S.Sangam: 1994 (1) KLT 429). What is