Judgment :- Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram dated 28.8.2000 made in Crl. M.P.No.1540 of 2000, allowing their petition partly, regarding disallowed period, they have filed the above revision before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioners, wife and minor children of the respondent herein filed M.C.No.18 of 1997 for maintenance from the respondent herein and obtained an order for payment of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) for the first petitioner and Rs.350/- (Rupees three hundred and fifty only) each for the petitioners 2 and 3. The said order was passed on 27.2.1998. The petition came to be filed on 1.10.1997. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the said order, since the respondent failed to pay the amount as ordered, they filed Crl.M.P.No.1540 of 2000 for appropriate direction. The learned Magistrate, Ambasamudram, after considering the date of the application, date of order and first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., rejected their claim for the period from 1.10.1997 to December 1998 and granted direction for payment of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) towards maintenance for the period from April 1999 to March 2000. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, after taking me through the relevant provisions would contend that the one year period prescribed in first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory and the learned Magistrate, Ambasamudram, ought to have issued direction for payment of maintenance from 1.10.1997. The very same contention was raised before the learned Magistrate, Ambasamudram, who after referring to the relevant provision and the limitation prescribed therein as well as the various decisions of this Court and other Courts, granted direction for payment of maintenance of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) for a period of one year i.e., from April 1999 to March 2000. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1987 Rajasthan LW Page 63, to the effect that one year period mentioned in first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory, the entire text of the judgment has not been placed before me. In such circumstance, without going into the order, it is not possible to consider the same. In such circumstance, without going into the order, it is not possible to consider the same. Further, I have already referred to the fact that the learned Magistrate has relied on certain decisions of other High Courts, taking the view that as per the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., no order can be passed for recovery of the amount prior to one year from the date on which it became due. In the light of the specific provision in the statute and in the absence of any other material, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived by the learned Magistrate, Ambasamudram. Accordingly, I do not find any valid ground for interference. 6. In result, the revision fails and the same is dismissed.