ORDER
G.D. Sharma, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated February 28, 1997 passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Jammu in execution petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner. The petitioner is the father of the respondents, who arc minors and they had filed the execution for the realization of the arrears of maintenance allowance. This maintenance allowance was granted to the respondents in a proceedings initiated by them under Section 20 of the J. & K. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The Court had in an ex parte order granted the maintenance allowance. The petitioner herein has filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree which is pending in the executing Court.
2. In terms of the impugned order dated 28-2-1997, the executing Court has attached Rs. 25,000/ from account No. J/2/13109 which is a pension account of the petitioner. It is also stated that earlier the executing Court on 26-8-1996 had also attached from this account an amount of Rs. 28006.50 as arrears of maintenance and the petitioner on 8-7-1997 came to know that the same has been disbursed to the respondents. Prayer has been made that order dated 28-2-1997 may be quashed and direction may be passed to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 21006,50 which they have received.
3. The counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that respondents are minor daughters of the petitioner, who is not giving them the maintenance allowance granted by the Court and they have been forced to file the execution petition and in terms of the order dated 28-6-1996 earlier arrears were recovered and now further arrears had accrued and in terms of the order dated 28-2-97 a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was attached by the executing Court from the pension account of the petitioner which is being maintained in the Bank.
4. The main trust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871, there is exemption of pension from attachment and the executing Court has acted illegally when the amount of the pension has been attached as well as disbursed.
5. The counsel appearing for the respondents has controverted the plea that inhibition contained in Section 11 of the Pension Act is operative so far as this money is with the Government and as soon as it is paid to the pensioner or deposited in his account in the Bank for making payment to him it loses the unattachability element from it. In support of his contention he has cited the case of Hassonmal Sangumal v. Diaromal Laloomal, AIR 1942 Sind 19 and Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance, AIR 1976 SC 1163 : 1976 Lab IC 773.
6. In the case of Hassonmal Sangumal (supra) it has been held that the words, ''money due or to become due' in Section 11 by necessary implication mean the money that has not yet been paid and has not been received by the pensioner, it ceases to be pension after the amountis paid to the pensioner. In the case of Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund & Finance (supra) it has been held that so long as the amounts are Provident Fund dues, pensions and other compulsory deposits then, till they are actually paid to the Government servant who is entitled to it on retirement or otherwise, the nature of the dues is not altered. The Government is a trustee for those sums and has an interest in maintaining the objection in Court to attachment.
7. In the present case the executing Court has in terms of the order dated 28-2-1997 attached a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the Bank account of the petitioner. In view of the law laid down in the abovesaid rulings no disability is attached for such because the payment of the pension stands made to the pensioner-petitioner and he cannot claim the benefit of Section 11 of the Pensions Act. The petitioner otherwise is debarred to challenge the order dated 26-8-1996 after a lapse of seven months because this petition was filed on 19-3-1997. No illegality is found either in the order dated 28-2-1997 or in the order dated 26-8-1996 which compells this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction for setting aside these orders. In this view of the matter, there is found no force in this revision petition which is rejected. The office is directed to send back the record of the trial Court which shall pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible.