Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 331 (HP)

PREMI DEVI v. PREM CHAND

2003-11-13

M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.6.2003 passed by the learned Chief. Judicial Magistrate, Shimla whereby the objection petition of the respondent against the claim of the petitioner for arrears of maintenance has been allowed and the application for recovery of such arrears has been held barred by limitation. 2. The undisputed facts not called in question by either of the parties are that vide order dated 2.7.1997 passed in Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1996 this Court awarded maintenance to the petitioner @ Rs. 500/- per month. The maintenance was made payable from 6.12.1993. In order to recover the maintenance for the period 6.12.1993 to May 2001 amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- the petitioner filed an-application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. on 29.5.2001 wherein it was averred that arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 54,500/-are recoverable. 3. The respondent filed objections to the application for realization of the arrears of maintenance claiming that the application was barred by time, for the arrears claimed for the period prior to 12 months of the filing of the application. The records reveal that a sum of Rs. 6000/- for the period for which the claim was within limitation had been received by the petitioner in the Court itself. The claim for the arrears beyond 12 months of the filing of the application was dismissed as barred by time. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 5. In view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. it is crystal clear that an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance allowance awarded under Section 125(1),of the Cr.P.C is required to be made within a period of one year from the date when arrears had become due for payment. Under the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 125 (supra), the period of one year prescribed therein will start running from the date of the order granting maintenance. Thus only site arrears of maintenance allowance can be recovered which are payable for one year prior to the date of institution of the application for recovery of the arrears. Under the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 125 (supra), the period of one year prescribed therein will start running from the date of the order granting maintenance. Thus only site arrears of maintenance allowance can be recovered which are payable for one year prior to the date of institution of the application for recovery of the arrears. In view of the special provisions made in the above referred proviso, nothing contained in the Limitation Act can come to the aid of the party seeking recovery of the amount of arrears for a period beyond one year of the filing of the application. [See : Leela Devi and others v. Mohan Lal, 2004(1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 204: Cr. M.M.O. No. 25 of 2003 decided by this Court on 6.8.2003]. 6. In view of the above position in law and the admitted facts, as stated hereinabove, the application of the petitioner for recovery of the arrears was within limitation only for 12.months immediately before 29.5.2001 which were received by the petitioner in the Court. The application for recovery of arrears prior to the period of one year before filing of the application is clearly time barred. The Court below has, therefore, not committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. As a result, this petition merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.