KASTURI RADHAKRISHNA MURTY Vs. KASTURI LAKSHMINARASAMMA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KASTURI RADHAKRISHNA MURTY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal by the judgment-debtor gives rise to a short question of law relating to the scope and interpretation of the term salary" used in Clauses (I) and (i-a) of the proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The material facts which lie in a short compass may be stated: The respondent-wife, who obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 9,918-65 ps. Rs. 5,500/- towards her maintenance and the balance towards the value of her jewellery and costs, sought for attachment of the salary of her husband, the appellant herein, who is working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of the Income-tax Officer at the Vijayawada. He is drawing a basic salary of Rs. 192.00 per mensem. In addition, he is getting Rs. 122.00, Rs. 25.00 and Rs. 21.75 towards dearness allowance, interim relief and house rent allowance respectively. The total emoluments would come to Rs. 360-75 ps. The application of the appellant under Section 47 and 151, C. P. C. to direct the respondent-decree-holder to furnish security before withdrawing the amount deposited by him into the lower Court, was dismissed on the ground that she is entitled to attach two-thirds of his basic salary. Hence this appeal.
(3.) The contention of Sri Mallikarjuna Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the Court below should have deducted the one-third of the total emoluments received by his client, under clause (i-a) of the proviso to Section 60 (1) C.P.C. and thereafter exempted the other allowances under clause (1) of the same sub-section and hence, what the Court below has done is illegal and unjust. This claim of the appellant is resisted by Mr. Y. G. Krishnamurty, the learned counsel for the decree-holder contending inter alia that there is no merit in this appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.