AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Amareswari, J.—This is a petition u/s 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to revise the order of the II Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Visakapatnam attaching the salary of the petitioner for not paying the maintenance according to the decree in M.C. No. 11 of 1983.1 do not find any illegality in the order. Mr. Sastry, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that u/s 125(3) of the Cr. P.C. only movable property can be attached and sold but the salary is not movable property which can be sold and therefore the salary cannot be attached. 1 am unable to agree with this contention. Section 125 Cr. P.C. is designed to provide maintenance to a party who is unable to support herself or himself. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the person against whom the decree is passed to comply with the decree. Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. provides for enforcement of the decree and the said section says that any movable property can be attached. The expression movable property must be given wide interpretation. In my opinion the salary cannot be excluded from the category of movable property mentioned in Section 125(3) Cr. P.C. This is also the view taken by a learned single -Judge in Ahmed Pasha Vs. Wajid Unissa and Others, . The revision is, therefore dismissed.
It is represented that Crl. R.C. 192 of 1985 filed against the order in M.C. 11 of 1983 is still pending. Post Crl. R.C. 192 of 1985 for final hearing as expeditiously as possible.