Amal Mukherjee Versus Pranati Mukherjee & Anr. (Calcutta HC) C.R.R. No 399 of 2007)
3. In the case of Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Mst. Manoara Bibi, reported
in 1992 Cri L.J. 83, a Division Bench of our High Court held that the future
salary not being a tangible corporeal property the same cannot be attached for
recovery of the arrear maintenance.
4. It may be noted that the Learned Judge also in her order observed
that no future income can be attached as she was of the view since same was not
salary but was pension to which the petitioner is entitled during her lifetime the
same can be attached. In this regard the observations made by the Division
Bench of our High Court in the aforesaid case of Md. Jahangir Khan Vs. Mst.
Manoara Bibi (supra) would be very relevant and is quoted below;
Para 13. “A single Judge of Orissa High Court relying on a
Karnataka decision in Rudraiah V. Muddagangamma, 1985 Cri LJ
707 sought to make a synthesis in Surekha V. Ramahari, 1990 Cri
LJ 639. His Lordship while agreeing that only tangible corporeal
property could be attached held that salary when becomes due was
liable to attachment. According to the learned Judge, writ of
attachment should remain dormant and would revive at the end of
the month. With deep respect to the learned Judge, we cannot
accept his view for the foregoing reasons. On similar reasons, we are
unable to agree with the finding of the referring Judge.”
5. Thus, the future pension of the petitioner not being tangible and still
not been earned by him same cannot be attached.