Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (1.08 seconds)Section 60 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 136 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Husain Baksh vs Mr. Briggen Shaw (W.J.) on 10 April, 1933
38. It is wholly unnecessary for me to express any final opinion ?on the scope of Sections 136 and 144, Army Act, as the case before us is really governed either by Section 120, Indian Army Act, or by Section 145, Army Act. Whatever we may say as regards Section 136 or Section 144 would be merely obiter dicta and not affect the ruling in Hussain Baksh's case Husain Baksh v. Briggen Shaw A.I.R. 1933 All. 597. But as my learned brethren have discussed those sections also, I feel that I should indicate the other point of view as well. The provisions of the Indian Army Act (Act 8 of 1911), if it governs the husband, are perfectly clear and leave no doubt in the matter. Under Section 119, no person subject to that Act is liable to be arrested for a debt under any process; and under Section 120 the pay and allowances, etc., of any such person cannot be attached at all. There is nothing in that Act which expressly makes it subject to the Civil Procedure Code, and Section 60(1)(j), Civil P.C. expressly makes the pay and allowances of persons to whom the Indian Articles of War (now the Indian Army Act) applies not liable to attachment. There is however a marked contrast so far as the provisions of the Army Act are concerned. Section 136 makes the pay of an officer or soldier payable without any deduction other than those authorized by the Act. Now the word deduction would prima facie mean deduction at the source, which may not be the same thing as attachment in execution of a decree. Sections 137 and 138 show what is meant by the deductions contemplated by Section 136. Sections 136 and 142 come under the heading "pay."
Section 151 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
May Geraldine Duckworth vs George Francis Duckworth on 28 August, 1918
44. The only difficulty that I feel about Section 145 is that it refers to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children. I have considerable hesitation in holding that the section also casts a liability on a soldier to maintain a woman who was formerly his wife and has now been divorced from him. Interpreting the section strictly, I would be inclined to hold that it would not cover the case of a divorced wife. On the other hand, on a liberal interpretation, where the alimony awarded to a divorced wife is in the nature of a maintenance allowance to her until she remarries, the word "wife" may include such a divorced wife as well. My learned brother Bennet, J., thinks that the word "wife" includes a divorced wife, such as the applicant in the present case. This view is in accord with that expressed in May Geraldine Duckworth v. George Francis Duckworth A.I.R. 1919 Bom. 133, which also was a case of a divorced wife. With some hesitation I feel that I should not differ. I therefore concur in the final order proposed, that the pay of the Assistant Surgeon cannot be attached in execution of a decree for alimony and maintenance.