JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The learned lower court has granted maintenance to the amount of Rs. 150 p.m. to the non-petitioner and the amount for the period 1-1-77 to 30-6-82 was not paid to the non- petitioner. For the recovery of this amount, a request was made to the trial Court, and a warrant of attachment was issued against the petitioner. Against that warrant of attachment, the petitioner filed an application in the lower court that the order of the Court below is illegal and it should be withdrawn. It was also argued that the order of the Court dated 9-7-82 being illegal be set aside. The lower court dismissed that application. However, the petitioner paid to the non-petitioner the maintenance amount for the period 1-1-77 to 30-6-82 was not paid for which a warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued. Against this order, the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the amount for the period 1-7-77 to 30-6-82 is barred by limitation. According to Section 125 (3), the non-petitioner can only claim the amount within a-period of one year from the date on which it became due. The court can also issue a warrant for the recovery of the unpaid amount, provided an application is made to the court for the recovery of such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. As the non-petitioner has not filed any application for the amount due from 1-7-77 to 30-6-82, the Court should not have issued a warrant of attachment for the recovery of the same. He has also cited law on this point. 3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The court has granted the amount of maintenance and it was the moral duty of the petitioner to make payment of the amount, as directed by the Court. For some reason, if the non-petitioner could not approach the Court within one year. it does not take away the moral duty of the petitioner to make the payment of the maintenance amount. For some reason, if the non-petitioner could not approach the Court within one year. it does not take away the moral duty of the petitioner to make the payment of the maintenance amount. The maintenance amount is always granted when the relations between wife and husband become strained and when they live separately, or when the divorce is effected. The lady who always remains at the mercy of the husband and who is turned out, she has no source of income to maintain her, and even to approach the court regularly. The husband who is always at the better position and who can exert influence, wants to harass the lady. It does not matter whether the non-petitioner requests the Court in time or after the period of limitation. A moral duty is enjoined on the husband, and without making shelter of the technalities of the law and the provisions of Section 125 (3) Cr. P C. he should have paid this amount I see no reason to interfere in the order of learned lower court. He had passed the order on 9-7-82 and the present application has been filed on 2-6-83. The petitioner has also not approached the Court within reasonable time. He should also see when he should approach the higher Court, if he feels aggrieved against the order of the lower Court. When he himself can wait for such a long period, he should not expect from a poor lady, who has no source of income, to approach the Court and fulfil the technalities of law. 4. With these observations, the application under Section 482 Cr P. C. filed by the petitioner, is dismissed summarily.Application dismissed. *******