JUDGMENT 1. 1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 22.6.95 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, by which the learned Magistrate ordered for the issuance of warrant of attachment and the order dated 6.3.90 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barmer, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate ordered for the grant of maintenance to the wife Smt. Parvati. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Court can issue the warrant for the recovery of the whole or any part of each month's maintenance allowance remained unpaid within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. 3. The facts of the case are that Smt. Parvati (the wife) moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Barmer and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 6.3.90 awarded the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month to the wife with effect from 1.8.89. The amount of maintenance was paid upto 30.9.91 but after 1.10.91 the amount of maintenance was not paid to her and, therefore, the wife moved the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. for the recovery of the amount. The date on which the application was moved, has not been given by the petitioner in the petition nor the learned counsel for the petitioner is in a position to state that on which date the application was moved. In ground (f) of the petition it is mentioned that the application was made in the year 1993. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of the maintenance has not been paid by his client since 1.10.91. Even if the application is taken from the year 1993 then too prior to one year of the date of making the application the amount is recoverable. The warrant of attachment has been issued and the petitioner has been served with it. Even if the application is taken from the year 1993 then too prior to one year of the date of making the application the amount is recoverable. The warrant of attachment has been issued and the petitioner has been served with it. He can appear before the learned Magistrate and raise the grievance, if any available to him, before the learned Magistrate but looking to the fact that certain amount of maintenance is due which is recoverable from the petitioner, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised and the petitioner, if so likes, may appear before the learned Magistrate and raise his grievances. The provisions of Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to fulfil a social purpose and are made to prevent starvation and vagrancy leading to the commission of crimes. They provide a preventive remedy for securing the payment of the maintenance amount. The object of these provisions is to compel a man to perform the moral and social obligation which he owes to the society in respect of his wife. The order dated 6.3.90, passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance was not challenged by the petitioner earlier and by the lapse of time, that order has become final and no interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be made for quashing this order. 4. In the result, I do not find any merit in this miscellaneous petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition Rejected. *******