A.C.GOYAL, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against three orders dated 2.8.2000, 28.1.2002 and 22.3.2002 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur ordered to recover the amount of maintenance awarded to non-applicant wife Smt. Madhu under the proceedings of Section 125 Cr.P.C. by attachment from the salary of the husband petitioner Narendra Kumar. In compliance of these three orders, according to learned counsel, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has already been recovered.
(2.) HE contended that he does not dispute the amount already recovered but the amount of maintenance cannot be recovered by attachment of the salary of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon Akhilesh Bhargav v. Ranjana Bhargav and Anr., 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 23. Relying upon one judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered in Baldevi v. Ramnath, AIR 1955 (Raj.) 61, it was held by this Court in Akhilesh Bhargav's case (supra) that amount of the maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be recovered by way of attachment of salary and recourse can be taken to the provisions of Section 421 Cr.P.C. or other relevant provisions. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that the petitioner was not paying the amount, hence the impugned orders were passed. I have considered the said submissions. Keeping in view the judgment of this Court delivered in Akhilesh Bhargav's case (supra), this petition deserves acceptance as the impugned orders for attachment of the salary cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this petition is allowed and these three impugned orders are set aside but the amount already recovered under these orders would not be affected otherwise. Petition allowed.;