Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 643 (MAD)

VEERAMMAL v. PAPPUSAMI

2004-04-07

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2004
Judgment :- S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN, J. (1) THE revision petitioner is the wife and the revision is filed against the order dated 12. 11. 2001 made in E. P. No. 74 of 2000 in O. S. No. 855 of 1990 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul and as per order, the Executing Court attached the pension payment to the husband, the first respondent and by the second respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity board. (2) THE wife, the revision petitioner filed the suit O. S. No. 855 of 1 990 against her husband, the first respondent claiming maintenance and the suit was decreed on 15. 7. 1998. The first respondent is a retired employee of the Electricity Board in which he worked as a wireman. After such decree, the wife filed E. P. No. 74 of 2000 for attachment of his pension amount, viz. , Rs. 2,532/- per month towards E. P. claim of Rs. 24,294/ -. (3) THE petition was opposed that the amount claimed for attachment being the pension amount that cannot be attached under the Pension Act. (4) THE Executing Court, despite the fact the judgment of this Court in P. Dhanapal vs.- P. Nagiah reported in 1999-II M. L. J. 572 was relied on by the decree-holder, by saying that pension amount can be attached as per Section 60 (1) (g) of Civil Procedure Code, refused to order attachment of pension amount payable by the Electricity Board to the husband, the first respondent. The order is challenged by the wife, the decree-holder in this Civil Revision Petition. (5) HEARD the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. (6) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that inasmuch as the pension amount once credited to the account of the savings bank, it would loose the character of the pension and becomes the property of the first respondent and as such, the attachment sought for in respect of the pension amount is very much in order. (6) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that inasmuch as the pension amount once credited to the account of the savings bank, it would loose the character of the pension and becomes the property of the first respondent and as such, the attachment sought for in respect of the pension amount is very much in order. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in P. Dhanapal vs. P. Nagiah reported in 1999-II M. L. J. 572, in which this Court has held:-"the moment the dues leave the Government, they lose the character of Provident Fund dues, pension or other compulsory deposits and when the amount received in respondents Bank account, Section 60 (1) (g), C. P. C. ceases to operate. Amount then becomes part of assets of judgment-debtor. So attachment of said amount is possible and lawful. The pension and other compulsory deposits covered by the provisions of the Pension Act, would retain their character only till they reach the hands of the employee. The question is as to when such amounts can be stated to have been received by the judgment-debtor. The respondents pension amount is received by the Indian Bank on his behalf and credited in his S. B. account. Till provident fund dues, pension, compulsory deposits are actually paid to the Government servant, who is entitled to them on retirement or otherwise, the nature of the dues is not altered. As long as the amounts are with the Government, the Government is a trustee for those sums and has an interest in maintaining the objection to attachment. But the moment the dues leave the Government, they lose the character of P. F. dues, pension and other compulsory deposits and they become part of the assets of the judgment-debtor. It is not his receiving it in his hands, that is material. The amount reaching his S. B. account will by itself be sufficient for the operation of Section 60 (1) (g) to cease. " (7) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that by virtue of Section 60 (1) (g) of Civil Procedure Code, the pension amount payable to the first respondent cannot be attached. The amount reaching his S. B. account will by itself be sufficient for the operation of Section 60 (1) (g) to cease. " (7) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that by virtue of Section 60 (1) (g) of Civil Procedure Code, the pension amount payable to the first respondent cannot be attached. There is no force in the said argument as held by this Court in the judgment referred to above and relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Once the pension amount despatched to be credited to the bank account of the first respondent, it lose the character and becomes the property of the judgment-debtor. It is not in dispute that the pension amount payable by the Electricity Board to the first respondent is being credited in the account of the first respondent and as such, once the pension amount is credited to the savings bank account it will become the property of the first respondent. In that case, the said amount can be attached for the maintenance amount payable to the wife/decree-holder and also towards arrears of maintenance payable to her as claimed in the Execution Petition. It follows the order of the Executing Court is to be se aside. (8) IN the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order and decretal order dated 12. 11. 2001 made in E. P. No. 7 4 of 2000 in O. S. No. 855 of 1990 by the Executing Court. No cost. The Executing Court is directed to restore the Execution Petition and proceed with the same in accordance with law.