JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, J. 1. The order impugned is passed in revision by the XIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, setting aside the order of the Magistrate directing recovery of the amount of maintenance which has accrued due subsequent to the filing of the application under Section 125(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned A.S.J. has held that for the recovery of any amount that may fall due during the pendency of an application under Section 125(3), the proviso to Sub-section (3) providing for limitation shall be attracted and if such an application is not made within one year from the date on which the amount has fallen due, the application shall be barred by limitation. 2. The point projected in this revision stands concluded by decision of this Court in Loonchand v. Hemkanta, 1986 (I) MPWN 144, wherein it is held : "Section 125 of the Code is designed to place the right to maintenance on the pedestal of a statutory right and thereby prevent destitution. It is in this background that the relevant provision has to be construed. The proviso extracted above is only to ensure that the person who has the order under Section 125(1) of the Code does not sleep over and allow the arrears to grow. It cannot certainly be construed as giving a technical defence of the defaulting husband to deprive the wife who has been vigilant and has come to the Court with an application for levying the amount of arrears and for an order for the monthly allowance being regularly paid to her. The prayer for levying the amounts as and when they fall due is implicit in the application. In the circumstances of the case there was no need, during its pendency to multiply applications for the purpose. Any fresh application would only have been in continuation of the prayer already made." 3. The learned A.S.J. was, therefore, clearly wrong in restricting the recovery of the amount falling due during the pendency of application under Section 125(3) for a period of 12 months only. If the original application was within limitation then any amount which has fallen due during the pendency of that application could be recovered in the same proceedings. 4. I thus allow this revision, set aside the order of the A.S.J. and restore back the order of the Magistrate.