Madras High Court comprising of Justice V Sivagnanam held that exemption under section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and under section 60(1)(g) of the CPC is not applicable to the husband, because a wife is not a creditor and the maintenance to her cannot be considered a debt. Hence, the Maintenance to the wife was attached to the Pensions account of the Husband.
Brief Facts:
In the current case, the petitioner is the wife of the respondent and in her previous maintenance case, an amount of Rs.500/- was ordered to be paid to her as maintenance. This amount was enhanced to Rs, 4000 in the year 2013. The Respondent has not paid the amount regularly which led to a backlog of Rs.1,19,000/-. The respondent-husband was a barber in the Indian Military and he retired from his service in 2019 and now he has been receiving pension. As per the circumstances, the wife had filled a petition for attachment of the pension account for the arrears of the maintenance as well as for the future maintenance, this petition was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate on the ground that there is a bar under Section 60(1)(g) and therefore, the current revision petition was filled challenging the dismissal.
Observations of the Court:
The court noted that the issue for consideration in the current case 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. The court referred the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagwant v. Radhika (2019 NearLaw(Bombay HC Nagpur) Online 443), where it was observed that the maintenance allowance granted to the wife cannot be considered as debt and that she is not a creditor. And therefore, the exemption u/s 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 cannot be granted to the husband. In the same case, a judgment of the High Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad was also referred, where the principal Family court directed the bank to deduct an amount from the pension account of the husband as maintenance and credit the same to the wife’s account. And accordingly, the High Court of Bombay held that wife cannot be treated as a creditor and upheld the order of attachment of pension passed by the Family Court for collection of the maintenance amount from the pension account of the husband.
Further this court noted that if maintenance allowance is exempted u/s 11 of the Pensions Act 1871 then the consequence would affect the divorced women’s interest and therefore such interpretation would not advance justice and would affect the measure of social justice to protect women. The court also noted that a lawful claim by a woman in distress should not be denied heartlessly and lawlessly.
Decision of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court held that the maintenance allowance granted to the wife cannot be considered as a debt and she is not a creditor. And therefore, the exemption under section 11 of the Pension Act 1871 as well as the exemption under Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC cannot be granted to the husband. Further, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was found to be unsustainable and was set aside and this criminal revision petition was allowed.
Case Title: P.Amutha v. Gunsekaran
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.Sivagnanam
Case No.: Crl.R.C.No.1501 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mrs. M.S.Rajeswari
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments