Civil Revision No. 1420 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1420 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.5.2011 *** Mohinder Singh Sood .. Petitioner Vs. Anjana Sood & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner, admittedly, is the father of the respondents. Anjana Soode and Amit Sood the daughter and son respectively filed a civil suit in the year 1999 claiming maintenance and other expenses from their father. It was their case that their father had deserted them as well as their mother for no reasonable cause and they claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month for each of them till the daughter gets married and the son attains majority. Their claim was contested by the father-petitioner and ultimately vide judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010 the suit was decided in favour of the children and the Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- to each of them from the filing of the suit till Anjana Sood gets married and the son namely Amit Sood attains majority. The arrears of maintenance accumulated to Rs.10,48700/- after making the adjustment of interim maintenance received by the children and the maintenance awarded to them in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C, as ordered vide the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 16.8.2010. For claiming the arrears, the respondents preferred an execution petition wherein the Executing Court below issued the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 thereby asking the employer of the petitioner to attach his 2/3rd salary and remit the same to the Civil Revision No. 1420 of 2011 2 Court for making the payment to the respondents towards maintenance. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the amount of maintenance of Rs.7000/- each has been fixed considering the latest carry home salary of the petitioner in the year 2010 while he has been directed to pay the same amount from the year 1999 when the salary of the petitioner was on very low side. He has further contended that the financial status of the petitioner as also his liabilities of maintaining his old mother as well as his own personal expenses, have not been taken into consideration while issuing the attachment order, that too to the extent of 2/3rd, which is totally uncalled for. According to him after deduction of 2/3rd salary, the petitioner has been left with only Rs.4000/- per month. Most of the contentions are concerning the merits of the case and any observation made by this Court thereon may adversely affect the proceedings pending before the Court below, including the appeal, if any and as such this Court refrain from commenting thereupon. However, the impugned attachment order to the extent of 2/3rd from the total salary of the petitioner seems to be harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case because the petitioner himself requires the money for his survival as well as that of his old age mother. In view of the above, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the deductions to the extent of half of the amount of salary be made from the pay of the petitioner, instead of 2/3rd. Keeping in view the facts of the case, it is directed that the Executing Court below shall decide the execution preferably within three months. The instant revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Jiten