A single judge of Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt as she is not a creditor.

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel Shri P.K.Mishra for the applicant/husband pointed out Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and submitted that pensions cannot be attached. The said Section 11 is reproduced herein below:
“11. Exemption of pension from attachment.No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past
services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance.
shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court a[***] at the instance of a creditor, for, any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.
b[This section applies a[***] also to pensions granted or continued, after the separation of Burma from India, by the Government of Burma.]
[a] The words “in Part A States and Part C States” were omitted by S.2 A.L.O., 1956 (1111956).
[b] Inserted by A.O., 1937 (141937).
[c] That is, on or after 141937.”
The above said Section shows that in civil disputes pensions cannot be attached at the instance of creditors. Commentary relied on by learned counsel for the applicant/husband at serial No.16 under head of attachment shows that, “maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt – She is not a creditor hence exemption under S.11 cannot be granted to husband. (1985)87 Punk LR 682 : (1985) 12 Cri LT 219”. The said commentary itself shows that pensions can be attached to recover amount of maintenance. Hence, the stand taken by learned counsel for the applicant/husband that pensions cannot be attached is not digestible.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC here.