Judgment : This is a revision petition filed by the wife against the order of the Court below dismissing her petition filed under S. 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the past maintenance for the period from 9-6-77 to 1-2-1988. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are : The wife filed a petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C. on 9-6-1977 seeking grant of maintenance. After contest the petition was allowed on 9-12-1968 granting the maintenance at Rs. 180/-per month from the date of application. That order has become final. In pursuance of this grant, the wife filed a petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C., on 9-1-1989 for execution of the maintenance order. The Court below holding that the wife is entitled to the maintenance from 1-2-1988 to 31-1-1989 (i.e., for twelve months) dismissed the said petition under S. 12(3), Cr.P.C. so far it relates to the period prior to 1-2-1988. Hence this revision. 3. Mr. Mahesh Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that by a reading of first proviso S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. it is clear that the petition for execution of the maintenance order has to be filed within one year from the date on which the amount became due. In this instant case, the learned counsel submitted the amount became due only on 9-12-1988, when the Court granted maintenance on the application made therefore, and therefore the execution filed on 9-1-1989 is well within the contemplated period of one year. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the order dismissing execution petition for the period in question is bad in law and merits to be set aside by ordering it for the full period. 4. The respondent-husband, though served, remained absent and nobody represented him. The learned public prosecutor, therefore, was heard. He made his submissions supporting the order under revision. He contended that the first proviso to S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. limits the period to one year from the date on which the maintenance amount has become due and therefore the dismissal of the petition to the extent over and above one year is exactly according to the spirit of S. 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. He contended that the first proviso to S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. limits the period to one year from the date on which the maintenance amount has become due and therefore the dismissal of the petition to the extent over and above one year is exactly according to the spirit of S. 125, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. In view of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration in this revision is, what is the period of limitation to order an execution petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. for realisation of the amount of maintenance awarded under S. 125, Cr.P.C. 6. At the outset, it us essential to set out S. 125, Cr.P.C. to decide the question stated supra. The section reads : "125(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain - (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) ...... (c) ...... (d) ...... a Magistrate of First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal order a person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife ..... at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit ..... (2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of application for maintenance. (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient causes to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or part of each months allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment is sooner made : Provided that no warrant shall be issued for recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due ..... 7. Thus, S. 125(1), Cr.P.C., empowers the Court to grant maintenance to the wife under the circumstances envisaged therein. S. 125(2) provides for awarding of maintenance from the date of order or from the date of application, if the Court so chooses. 7. Thus, S. 125(1), Cr.P.C., empowers the Court to grant maintenance to the wife under the circumstances envisaged therein. S. 125(2) provides for awarding of maintenance from the date of order or from the date of application, if the Court so chooses. In other words, the Court can grant the maintenance either from the date of its order or from the date of application. S. 125(3) provides that in case the person against whom the maintenance is ordered fails to comply with the order, the Magistrate may issue warrant and recover the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and also sentence such person to imprisonment. The proviso to S. 125(3) as extracted supra puts an embargo against issue of warrant for recovery of the amount due, if the application there for is not made within a period of one year from the date on which the amount became due. 8. It is to be noted here that the persons specified in S. 125(1), Cr.P.C. have a right to seek maintenance and the Court after following the procedure envisaged makes an order granting or refusing maintenance. The grant of maintenance, again can be from the date of order or from the date of application, if so specified by the Court. As pointed out by the learned public prosecutor if the maintenance amount is directed to be paid from the date of its order, an application made under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C., within one year from such date of grant for realisation of maintenance amount so granted is well within the period of limitation contemplated by the first proviso to S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. It is only in cases where the order directs payment of maintenance from the date of application under S. 125(1), Cr.P.C., the question arises as to whether the petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. for realisation of the maintenance amount granted is barred for the period beyond one year, though the petition is filed within one year from the date of grant of maintenance. S. 125(1) pre-supposes existence of a right to seek maintenance whereas S. 125(3) contemplates an order granting maintenance. In the absence of an order granting maintenance, there does lie no petition under S. 125(3) inasmuch as there is no maintenance amount due for being realised. Maintenance amount becomes due if only an order is made granting maintenance. S. 125(1) pre-supposes existence of a right to seek maintenance whereas S. 125(3) contemplates an order granting maintenance. In the absence of an order granting maintenance, there does lie no petition under S. 125(3) inasmuch as there is no maintenance amount due for being realised. Maintenance amount becomes due if only an order is made granting maintenance. It is from such date on which it became due that the period of one year as contemplated by the proviso to S. 125(3) has to be reckoned. The expression used in the proviso is "within a period of one year from the date on which it became due." In Strouds Judicial Dictionary (5th Edition), the term "Due and Payable" is referred to mean liability in respect of which there had to be payment. In Potel v. I.R.C. (1970) TR 325 the word due is interpreted to mean that dividends are due under the Income-tax Act when they became payable and not at the time they are declared. So much so, the term becomes due under the Income-tax Act means as interpreted in (1971) 2 All ER 504 between the same parties noted above, a dividend became due on the day it was declared payable and not at the time it was first announced. In Law Lexicon the word Due is given the meaning as an existing obligation, an indebtedness, a debt ascertained and fixed though payable in future, and owing and unpaid. According to Bourviers Law Dictionary due means what ought to be paid, what may be demanded. Thus, the maintenance amount becomes due only after it is ascertained and fixed by the Court and payable on a date later to such grant. The right to seek maintenance under S. 125(1) is thus quite distinct and different from the right to realise the maintenance amount under S. 125(3) after it became due. The maintenance amount becomes due, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only the date it is granted by the Court, viz., 9-12-1988 in the instant case. The application under S. 125(2) to realise this amount that became due on 9-12-1988 is to be made within one year from the said date in accordance with the proviso thereto. Admittedly, the petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. is made in this case on 9-1-1989, within one year from 9-12-1988. 9. The application under S. 125(2) to realise this amount that became due on 9-12-1988 is to be made within one year from the said date in accordance with the proviso thereto. Admittedly, the petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. is made in this case on 9-1-1989, within one year from 9-12-1988. 9. Viewing the question from another angle, it is to be noted that a reading of S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Court is empowered to grant maintenance either from the date of its order or from the date of application for maintenance. This power would got rendered nugatory if the past maintenance is limited to one year in terms of the first proviso to S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. The section as a whole has got to be given a harmonious reading. The interpretation sought to be given by the Public Prosecutor to the first proviso to S. 25(3), Cr.P.C. by limiting the power under S. 125(2), Cr.P.C. to one year instead of from the date of application for maintenance would amount to permitting a self-contradictory reading to S. 125, Cr.P.C. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor in support of his contention also sought to rely on a decision of this Court in Srinivasa Rao v. Rajeswari (1989) 2 APLJ (HC) 41 : (1990 Cri LJ 2506). There, the maintenance-holder after the grant of maintenance by the Court allowed the amount to accumulate beyond a period of one year and therefore the Court refused realisation beyond the period of one year. That is not a case where the expression became due stood for interpretation. The facts therein are different and distinct from those on hand. Here also there is no dispute with the observation and holding made therein that the maintenance-holder cannot accumulate the maintenance amount beyond a period of one year. This is a case where the Court granted maintenance (past maintenance) from the date of application which worked out to a period beyond one year. It is not at the instance of the maintenance-holder (petitioner) that the amount got accumulated and she is not responsible for its accumulation. The petitioner, as noted supra, filed the petition on 9-1-1989 under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. for realisation of the amount became due by virtue of the order dated 9-12-1988 of the Court granting maintenance from 9-6-1977 the date of her application for grant of maintenance. The petitioner, as noted supra, filed the petition on 9-1-1989 under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. for realisation of the amount became due by virtue of the order dated 9-12-1988 of the Court granting maintenance from 9-6-1977 the date of her application for grant of maintenance. Therefore, the decision relied upon has no application to the facts of the present case. 11. It is therefore to be held that in so far as realisation of the maintenance amount granted from the date of application therefor is concerned, the limitation envisaged by the first proviso to S. 125(3) starts from the date of order granting such maintenance since it is that date on which the maintenance since it is that date on which the maintenance amount becomes due, and therefore limiting the maintenance amount for a period of one year earlier to the petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. though maintenance is granted from the date of application for maintenance is illegal and unlawful. Accordingly the order under revision refusing realisation of the maintenance for the period from 9-6-1977 to 1-2-1988 is set aside and the Court below is directed to proceed ahead with the petition according to S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. as indicated above. The revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.