A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant Revisionist Application by the petitioner-wife (hereinafter referred to as wife) is directed against the order dated June 15, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum, in Criminal Motion No. 4 of 1992 before him, praying the Court for setting aside the said order on the grounds set forth therein. ( 2 ) THE wife had filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shortened into Code) before the Second Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Suri, Birbhum, in the early part of 1985, registered as Misc. Caw No. 22 of 1985/t. R. To 184 of 1985 against the opposite-party-husband (hereinafter referred to as husband) claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- only for herself and sum of Rs. 75/- only for her minor son per month on the grounds stated therein. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties concerned had allowed the wife's said application in part by his judgment and order dated November 10, 1987 directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- only per month for the wife and a sum of Rs. 75/- only per month for her minor son. The wife had thereupon put the said order to execution on 9. 3. 1988 under section 125 (3) of the Code, registered as Misc. Execution Case No. 7 of 1988. ( 3 ) AFTER getting notice of the said Execution Case, the husband had appeared and filed an objection before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10. 8. 91 on the ground of limitation contending that the wife would not be entitled to get maintenance for more than 12 months. The learned Magistrate, upon hearing the parties, had rejected the husband's aforesaid application by his order dated December 7. 1971 for the reasons recorded by him. 4. The husband had thereafter moved a Revisional Application against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate dated 7. 12. 91 before the learned Sessions Judge at Suri, Birbhum, registered as Criminal Motion No. 4 of 1992. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Suri, Birbhum, had allowed the said Revisions) Application by his judgment and order dated June 15, 1992 setting aside the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate for the reasons recorded by him. 12. 91 before the learned Sessions Judge at Suri, Birbhum, registered as Criminal Motion No. 4 of 1992. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Suri, Birbhum, had allowed the said Revisions) Application by his judgment and order dated June 15, 1992 setting aside the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate for the reasons recorded by him. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the wife has exercised this Court in Revision for the grounds made out by her. ( 5 ) IT is an admitted position that the application for maintenance filed by the wife against, the husband had been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned by his order dated 10. 11. 1987 directing the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and her minor son at the rates indicated above from February, 1985. The wife had thereupon filed an application on 9. 3. 88 before the learned Magistrate for recovery of maintenance from the husband in terms of the said order from February, 1985 to February, 1988, whereupon the husband had filed an objection before the learned Magistrate on the ground of limitation contending that the wife would not be entitled to claim maintenance for more than 12 months. The husband's said plea had been overruled by the learned Magistrate, but was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order for the reasons recorded therein. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying upon the decisions in Muddari Bin v. Sukdeo Bin, AIR 1967 Cal 136 and Jangam Srinivasa Rao v. Jangam Rajerwari and anr. 1990 Cr LJ 2506, which do not at all appear to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant proceedings, was of the opinion that the claim of maintenance exceeding 12 months in one petition is not acceptable, and the wife would not be entitled to claim maintenance for a period of 12 months preceding the date of filing of the execution case. But the decision so arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge could hardly be sustained with the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 125 of the Code, as it is, which reads as follows : -"provided that no warrant shall be issued for the 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. " ( 6 ) ON its plain language, plainly read, the aforesaid proviso provides that no warrant shall be issued for recovery of any amount due under this section unless an application is made to the Court therefore within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned had undeniably allowed the wife's application for maintenance directing the husband to pay maintenance to her and her minor son at the rates stated above from February 1985 by his relevant order dated 10. 11:1987. The maintenance allowed by the learned Magistrate by his said order could not conceivably have become due before the date of the said order. The arrears of maintenance allowed by the Court would clearly, therefore, become payable an the date of the order or on such future date, if any, as may be fixed by the Court for payment, as held in the decision in Gabind Sabi v. Prem Devi, 1988 Cr LJ 638 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in Abu Bakkar v. Mst. Ohidunnessa Bibi, 1992 Cr LJ 2826, with which I am in complete agreement. Our said view appear to be all the more fortified by the decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Gupteshwar Pandey v. Smt. Ram Peari Devi, AIR 1971 Patna 181, wherein Their Lordships had clearly held that the amount of maintenance does not become barred by limitation simply because the order contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 488 (as it then was) has been passed more than one year after the date of the original application. The maintenance becomes due, although with effect from a back date, only when the order of maintenance is passed, and the limitation can run only from that date. The maintenance becomes due, although with effect from a back date, only when the order of maintenance is passed, and the limitation can run only from that date. It would also be pertinent to refer to subsection (2) of section 488 of the Code (as it then was) in this context which laid down that maintenance allowed by the Court "shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance. " It is manifest that the amount could only have become due after the date of the order for maintenance passed by the Court. It could hardly be maintained that the amount had become due even before the claim for maintenance had been allowed by the Court. It could never have been the intention of the legislature that the amount of the maintenance should become barred by limitation simply because the order contemplated by the relevant provision of the Court has been passed more than one year after the date of the original application. It is needless to reiterate that maintenance becomes due, although with effect from a back date, only when the order therefore is passed by a competent Magistrate. That being so, computing the period of one year from 10. 11. 1987, it is quite clear that the application filed by the wife for recovery of the arrears of maintenance from the husband on 9. 3. 1988 was well within the period of one year envisaged in the fast proviso to subsection (3) of section 125 of the Code. The objection raised by the husband on the ground of limitation clearly, therefore, appears to be without any force whatsoever. If the view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned is accepted an order of maintenance passed by a competent Magistrate with effect from the date of the application for maintenance (after a lapse of one year therefrom), which he is competent to do under the law, would invariably be rendered infructuous, which could neither conceivably have been intended by the legislature. ( 7 ) UPON the premises above, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the face of it, appears to suffer from gross incorrectness, illegality and impropriety, calling for interference by this Court in Revision. In the result, the Revisional Application succeeds. ( 7 ) UPON the premises above, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the face of it, appears to suffer from gross incorrectness, illegality and impropriety, calling for interference by this Court in Revision. In the result, the Revisional Application succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned be, accordingly, hereby set aside. Interim stay, if any, stands vacated. The learned Judicial Magistrate-concerned is directed to enforce the order of maintenance passed by him without any further delay. Application succeed