A.Daniel vs Minor D.Jeshu Olivian
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
and
CRL MP No.20829 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012490792026}
A.Daniel
S/o C. Arjunan,
Last Known Address
F-1, Thillai Ganga Apartments,
Easwaran Koil Street,
Orakadam,Ambattur, Chennai-600053
Presently Working and employed in
Sukruwarpet Post Office,Coimbatore 641001.
Now Working in
Salem Camp Post Office,Salem
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Minor D.Jeshu Olivian
S/o A. Daniel,
Rep by Mother and Natural Guardian M. Nanthini
Temporarily Residing at
B2/12, Bhuvaneshwari Apartments,
Bharathidasan Colony,KK Nagar,
Chennai-600078.
Permanent Address at
55, Mullai Nagar,Nathamedu Lake Near,
Thiruninravur.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: To call for the records relating to the order dated 20-8-2026 passed in
MP No. 797 of 2026 in MC No. 464 of 2021 passed by Honorable VI
__________
Page1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
Additional Family Court at Chennai and set aside the said Impugned Order and
pass such other or further orders as deemed fit and proper in circumstances of
the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.V.Bhashyam Chari
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated
20.08.2026 passed in M.P.No.797 of 2026 in M.C.No.464 of 2021 on the file of
the Learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking to set aside the order
directing further attachment of the salary of the petitioner towards recovery of
maintenance arrears.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the
respondent herein, who is a minor child represented by his mother and natural
guardian, had initiated maintenance proceedings against the petitioner in
M.C.No.464 of 2021 before the Learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.
In the said proceedings, an order of maintenance had been passed in favour of
the minor child. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for recovery of the
maintenance arrears, pursuant to which the respondent sought attachment of the
salary of the petitioner. The petitioner is employed in the Postal Department of
the Central Government and is presently stated to be working at Salem Camp
Post Office, Salem.
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
3.According to the petitioner, pursuant to the earlier execution
proceedings initiated by the respondent, the salary of the petitioner was already
under attachment and the Postal Department was deducting a sum of
Rs.12,367/- per month from his salary and remitting the same towards the
maintenance arrears. While so, the respondent initiated further proceedings in
M.P.No.797 of 2026 in M.C.No.464 of 2021 seeking further attachment of the
salary of the petitioner. The learned VI Additional Family Court, by order dated
20.08.2026, passed orders directing further attachment of the salary of the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present
Criminal Revision Case.
4.The principal contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order
directing a further attachment of his salary is contrary to Section 60(1)(ia) of the
Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXI Rule 48(2) CPC. According to the
petitioner, his basic salary is only Rs.35,000/- per month and a sum of
Rs.12,367/- is already being deducted every month pursuant to the earlier
attachment order. It is therefore contended that the learned Family Court ought
to have considered the existing attachment and the statutory restriction on the
attachable portion of salary before directing any further attachment.
5.The petitioner has further contended that the learned Family Court
failed to consider the counter affidavit filed by him in the proceedings before
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
the Court below, wherein he had specifically brought to the notice of the Court
the existence of the earlier attachment and the statutory restrictions governing
the attachment of salary. According to the petitioner, the impugned order does
not contain any discussion regarding the objections raised by him in the counter
affidavit and is therefore vitiated by non-application of mind.
6.The petitioner has also contended that he had earlier filed M.P.No.1211
of 2026 on 06.01.2025, seeking alteration of the maintenance order under
Section 127(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 144(1) of the
BNSS. The said application was dismissed by the learned Family Court on
14.08.2026 on jurisdictional grounds. Challenging the same, the petitioner has
filed Crl.R.C.No.2184 of 2026, which is stated to be pending before this Court.
7.According to the petitioner, if the said revision petition is allowed, the
petitioner would be entitled to seek alteration or modification of the
maintenance amount with effect from the date of filing of the alteration petition.
Therefore, the petitioner contends that the further attachment for recovery of the
alleged arrears is premature and unsustainable.
8.The petitioner has further relied upon Section 60(1)(ia) CPC,
contending that one-third of the salary is exempt from attachment in execution
of a decree for maintenance and that only the remaining two-thirds can be
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
attached. He has also relied upon Order XXI Rule 48(2) CPC, contending that
where the attachable portion of the salary is already being withheld and remitted
pursuant to an earlier order of attachment, the subsequent order of attachment is
required to be returned to the Court issuing the same with particulars of the
existing attachment. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks interference with the
order passed by the learned Family Court.
9.This Court has carefully considered the grounds raised by the petitioner
and perused the materials placed on record. The principal question that arises
for consideration is whether the order directing further attachment of the salary
of the petitioner towards recovery of maintenance arrears suffers from any
illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
10.At the outset, it is relevant to note that the maintenance proceedings
arise out of the statutory obligation to provide maintenance to a minor child.
The object of the maintenance provisions is to ensure that the dependent child is
not deprived of the basic necessities of life and is provided with reasonable
financial support. Once an order of maintenance has been passed by a
competent Court, the person against whom such an order has been made is
legally bound to comply with the same. The mere fact that the petitioner has
other financial commitments or that the amount is being recovered through
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
salary attachment cannot, by itself, absolve him of his obligation to comply with
the maintenance order.
11.In the present case, the petitioner does not dispute the existence of the
maintenance proceedings or the fact that the salary attachment proceedings have
been initiated for recovery of the maintenance arrears. His principal grievance is
that the salary is already under attachment pursuant to an earlier order and that a
further attachment would result in deductions exceeding the permissible
statutory limit. Therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioner is primarily with
regard to the manner and extent of recovery of the maintenance arrears and not
the existence of the maintenance liability itself.
12.In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 60(1)(ia) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, which provides statutory protection to a portion of the salary
from attachment in execution of a decree for maintenance. The provision
protects one-third of the salary from attachment, thereby permitting attachment
of the remaining portion, subject to the other applicable provisions and the
manner in which salary is computed under the said section. The statutory
protection is intended to ensure that the judgment-debtor is not deprived of the
entire means of livelihood while simultaneously enabling the decree-holder to
realise the amount lawfully due.
__________
Page6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
13.It is equally relevant to consider Order XXI Rule 48(2) CPC, which
deals with the procedure to be followed when a subsequent order of attachment
is received in respect of salary that is already under attachment pursuant to an
earlier order. The said provision contemplates that where the attachable portion
of the salary is already being withheld and remitted to a Court pursuant to a
previous and unsatisfied order of attachment, the subsequent order of
attachment shall be returned to the Court issuing the same with particulars of
the existing attachment. Thus, the provision regulates the manner in which
successive attachment orders are to be implemented and ensures that the
statutory protection available to the judgment-debtor is not defeated.
14.However, the mere existence of an earlier order of attachment does
not, by itself, extinguish the liability of the petitioner towards the maintenance
arrears or render every subsequent recovery proceeding illegal. The earlier
attachment and the subsequent attachment have to be considered in accordance
with the statutory procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. The
object of the provision is to regulate successive attachments and prevent
recovery beyond the permissible attachable portion of the salary. It cannot be
construed as conferring immunity upon the petitioner from the recovery of the
maintenance arrears lawfully due to the minor child.
15.In the present case, the petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs.12,367/-
__________
Page7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
is being deducted every month from his salary pursuant to the earlier attachment
order. He has also relied upon his basic salary of Rs.35,000/- per month and
contended that any further deduction would deprive him of his livelihood.
However, the mere assertion regarding the amount of salary and the existing
deduction, without establishing that the impugned order has resulted in an actual
deduction beyond the statutorily attachable portion, would not by itself establish
that the impugned order is liable to be set aside in its entirety. The computation
of the attachable salary has to be made in accordance with Section 60 CPC,
taking into account the applicable statutory exclusions and the amount already
being withheld pursuant to the earlier attachment.
16.It is also relevant to note that the maintenance order passed in favour
of the minor child continues to remain operative unless it is modified, altered or
set aside by a competent Court. The petitioner has admittedly filed
M.P.No.1211 of 2026 seeking alteration of the maintenance order and has also
challenged the dismissal of the said application in Crl.R.C.No.2184 of 2026.
However, the mere pendency of the said revision petition does not automatically
operate as a stay of the existing maintenance order or the proceedings initiated
for recovery of the arrears. Unless the operation of the maintenance order or the
recovery proceedings is specifically stayed or modified by a competent Court,
the petitioner cannot seek to avoid compliance with the subsisting order merely
on the ground that a challenge relating to alteration of maintenance is pending.
__________
Page8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
17.The contention of the petitioner that the learned Family Court failed to
consider the counter affidavit filed by him also requires consideration. It is true
that the objections raised by a party, particularly those relating to the statutory
protection available under Section 60 CPC and the existing attachment under
Order XXI Rule 48 CPC, are relevant while considering a further attachment of
salary. However, the absence of an elaborate discussion of every contention
raised in the counter affidavit would not, by itself, render the order illegal,
unless it is demonstrated that the Court has failed to consider a material issue
which has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has not
established any such patent illegality or jurisdictional infirmity warranting
interference with the impugned order.
18.Further, the contention that the respondent ought to have furnished a
detailed calculation memo indicating the total arrears, the period of arrears, the
amounts already recovered and the balance outstanding is also a matter which
can be verified during the execution proceedings. Any amount already
recovered through the earlier salary attachment or paid directly by the petitioner
has necessarily to be given due credit while calculating the outstanding arrears.
The petitioner is also entitled to bring to the notice of the executing Court the
details of the existing attachment and the actual amounts being deducted and
remitted by the Postal Department. Such procedural requirements, however,
cannot be a ground to completely defeat the recovery of maintenance arrears
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
due to the minor child.
19.It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has specifically stated in
the grounds of revision that he does not seek to evade the lawful maintenance
liability determined by the competent Court and that his challenge is confined to
ensuring that the recovery is made strictly in accordance with the statutory
procedure and within the limits prescribed under Section 60 CPC and Order
XXI Rule 48 CPC. While the statutory protection available to the petitioner has
to be respected, the right of the minor child to receive the maintenance amount
already ordered by the competent Court cannot also be ignored. Both these
interests have to be balanced in accordance with the applicable statutory
provisions.
20.This Court is of the considered view that the statutory provisions
relied upon by the petitioner regulate the extent and manner of attachment of
salary and do not extinguish the underlying maintenance liability. The petitioner
has not demonstrated any sufficient ground to set aside the impugned order in
its entirety. The objections regarding the existing attachment, the amount
already recovered and the permissible attachable portion of the salary can be
duly considered by the executing Court while implementing the attachment
proceedings, in accordance with law.
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
21.It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is
supervisory in nature and is not intended to substitute the discretion exercised
by the Court below merely because another view is possible. Unless the
impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or
material irregularity, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the same. In
the present case, upon consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner and
the materials placed on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground warranting
interference with the impugned order dated 20.08.2026 passed by the Learned
VI Additional Family Court, Chennai.
22.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed . The order
dated 20.08.2026 passed in M.P.No.797 of 2026 in M.C.No.464 of 2021 on the
file of the Learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, stands confirmed .
The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
23.However, it is made clear that while implementing the attachment
order, the learned VI Additional Family Court shall take into consideration the
earlier subsisting attachment, the actual amount already deducted and remitted
by the Postal Department, and the statutory protection available to the petitioner
under Section 60(1)(ia) CPC read with Order XXI Rule 48(2) CPC. The
aggregate amount recovered through successive salary attachments shall not
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
exceed the statutorily attachable portion of the salary. The executing Court shall
also ensure that all amounts already recovered are given due credit while
calculating the outstanding maintenance arrears.
24.It is further made clear that the dismissal of the present Criminal
Revision Case shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of the petitioner in
Crl.R.C.No.2184 of 2026, which is stated to be pending before this Court,
challenging the dismissal of his application seeking alteration of the
maintenance order. The said revision petition shall be considered independently
on its own merits and in accordance with law.
25.Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the
Learned VI Additional Family Court, Chennai, for necessary compliance and
information.
30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SHA
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
To
The VI Additional Family Court at Chennai.
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
SHA
CRL RC No. 2462 of 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:23:07 pm )