Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Smt. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, placed reliance on the A four rulings i.e. Ahmed Pasha v. Wajid Unissa, 1983 Cr.L.J. 479; In re : Yerasuri Lakshmi-naryan Murty, 1986 Cr.LJ. 1846; Rudraiah K.V. v. Muddagangamma B.E., (1985 (1) Crimes 700 and Surekha Mrudangia v. Ramahari Mrudangia, 1990(1) Cr.L.C. 84.

7. In the case of Ahmad Pasha v. Wajid Unissa, (supra) recovery of arrears of maintenance by issuance of warrant for attachment of 5 salary was held permissible by holding that the wording of Section 125(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 permits the Magistrate to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code for levy of fines for recovery of arrears of maintenance. It was further held that as the Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, provides for issuance of warrant, for attachment or sale of any movable property, the issuance of such warrant for attachment of salary for recovery of maintenance was uphled. In the case of Yerasuri Lakshminarayan Murty (supra), it is held that the salary could be attached for the payment of maintenance under Section 125(3) of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that it is imperative on the part of the person against whom the decree for payment is passed to comply with it and the expression 'movable property' must be given a wide interpretation so as to include the salary in it. In the case of Rudraiah v. Muddagangamma (supra), a similar view was taken and when the husband was found having failed to comply with the order of maintenance, issuance of warrant of attachment of the salary under Section 421(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was held valid and effective. In the case of Surekha Mrudangia v. Ramahari Mrudangia (supra), also the arrear of maintenance was held as recoverable in the same manner provided for recovery of fine under Section 421(1)(a) of the Code. As stated above, the learned Single Judge of this Court took a view in Jagoo Sarju v. Ramkati Jagoo, 1982 Mh.LJ. 859, that the amount of maintenance payable under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, has to be recovered under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and as the future salary cannot be said to be a tangible movable property, no warrant for its attachment could be issued. The learned Single Judge placed reliance on Baldevi v. Ramnath, AIR 1955 Raj. 61 and All Khan v. Hajrambi, 1981 Cr.LJ. 682.

12. It is also necessary to refer to the provisions of Sections 125(3) and 421 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in this connection. Section 125(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that if any person ordered to pay maintenance fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any Magistrate may for every breach of the order issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines. Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, provides that when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

'"movable property' shall mean property of every description, except immovable property."
It, therefore, includes not only tangible corporeal movable property, but also the intangible movable such as a right to receive salary and wages from an employer. The definition in the General Clauses Act, 1897 will have to be considered for determining the connotation of the expression 'movable property' for the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure including Section 125(3) and Section 421. The only question is when the future salary can be said to be a movable property belonging to the husband against whom the recovery proceeding is initiated. It is true that, the salary, unless it becomes due, cannot be said to be the property of a person. To get salary, a person has to earn it. It, however, cannot be construed that it never assumes the status of a movable tangible property. In case of a salaried employee, the salary becomes due: when he avails it and at that moment it becomes his movable tangible property. If this is so, it cannot be gainsaid that a future salary can in no case be attached by a warrant. The salary becomes a movable property under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code when it becomes due. If this is so, it cannot be said that at no time a wife cannot ask to attach the salary of her husband in recovery proceedings. The Court is not prohibited forever to issue a warrant of attachment of the salary. It, however, also cannot be lost sight of the fact that a warrant takes effect when the salary becomes due and assumes the status of movable tangible property of the husband. Therefore, the issuance of a warrant for an attachment of the salary by itself cannot be said to be unwarranted by the provisions of the law. Considering the similar situations and the provisions we are, therefore, of the view that a future salary is not tangible property at inception, but it takes the shape of a tangible property when it becomes due. Therefore, when the salary becomes payable and takes the shape of tangible corporeal property it can be attached for realisation of arrears as well as current maintenance under Section 125(3) read with Section 421(1)(a) of the said Code. In case of default in payment of maintenance, the salary of the husband would, therefore, be liable for attachment in accordance with law when it becomes due at the end of the month and till then the warrant of attachment issued by the Magistrate has to remain dormant so as to revive at the appropriate time.

13. Our attention was also invited to a decision of the learned Single Judge at Nagpur Bench of this Court in Bhagwat Baburao Gaikwad and Anr. v. Baburao Bhaiyya Gaikwad and Anr., Criminal Application No. 794 of 1993, decided on September 28, 1993 (since reported in 1994 (1) Mh.L.J. 202). The learned Single Judge (M.S. Vaidya, J.) held in the said case that a warrant for attachment of the salary of the husband can be issued by the Magistrate for recovery of the arrears of maintenance allowance claimed by wife and child. Similarly, the learned Single Judge (K.P. Mahapatra, J.) of the Orissa High Court in Surekha Mrudangia v. Ramahari Mrudangia, 1990(1)Cr.L.C. 84, held that, for default of payment of maintenance, salary of the husband shall be liable for attachment when it becomes due at the end of the month and till then the writ of attachment shall remain dormant so as to revive at the appropriate time. In our opinion, the propositions enumerated in these two cases lay down the correct propositions of law. The learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court also thought it fit to recommend for amendments of the provisions of Sections 125 and 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in such a manner that it shall not be difficult for the deserted wives and children to recover the arrears and current maintenance. We are also of the view that a time has come when Sections 125 and 421 of Criminal Procedure Code require suitable amendments so as to enable the deserted wives, children and the parents to recover maintenance in a more effective and speedy way. The present procedure is not only time-consuming but also cumbersome and as such, it is a call of the day that these provisions are suitably amended. Further, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the term salary has also undergone a radical change since the enactment of Section 421 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In view of this we, therefore, respectfully disagree with the views expressed by our learned Single Judge (Puranik, J.) in Jagoo Sarju v. Ramkali Jagoo, 1982 Mh.L.J. 859, and hold that a salary becomes a tangible movable property when it accrues to a person and as such a warrant for attachment of such salary can be issued but it remains dormant and pending till the salary becomes actually due so as to make the warrant effective. The issuance of a warrant for attachment of the future salary at the inception cannot, therefore, be regarded as unauthorised and illegal.