Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1107 (MP)

Mamta v. Budhmal Rajak

2003-09-18

AJIT SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the wife is directed against the order dated 13.8.1998 passed in Criminal Revision No. 56/98 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, whereby he dismissed the revision confirming the order as passed by the Judicial Magistrate partly allowing her application filed under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is not in dispute that sometime in the year 1992 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umaria, allowed the petitioner's application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the respondent to pay her maintenance al10wance at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. As the respondent did not pay the maintenance allowance as directed, petitioner filed an application under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the recovery of arrears due before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umaria. The said application was dismissed by order dated 17.3.1994 on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish the address of respondent. This order was not challenged and as such it attained finality. Petitioner after about 2-1/2 years again filed an application dated 5.11.1996 under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the recovery of arrears due from 27.11.1992. The learned Magistrate, in view of the first proviso to section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by order dated 22.10.1997 directed the respondent to pay arrears only for a period of one year preceding the date on which the application was filed. It is a well settled principle of law that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless an application is made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due and that Court cannot enforce arrears of more than one year and that the aquiescence of defaulting party does not empower the Court to extend the period. Thus, the Courts below rightly refused to enforce arrears of more than one year. The petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.