JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same dispute and are between the same parties. 2. The petitioner Parimal Chakraborty in CRL. REV.P. 61 of 2009 has challenged the order of the Family Court passed in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. whereby maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month was allowed to the wife Smti. Mamata Bhattacharjee w.e.f. May, 2009. 3. Sri S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the amount of maintenance awarded is very much on the higher side and submits that the petitioner is only earning Rs. 7,000/- or Rs. 8,000/- per month and cannot be directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has gone through the evidence. I have also gone through the records and I find that the petitioner-husband is a Cable Operator having two different cable operating operations in small areas. His income can reasonably be assessed at Rs. 500/- per day or Rs. 14,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month and, therefore, the assessment of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance is not at all on the higher side and calls for no interference in this petition. 4. In CRL. REV.P. 86 of 2013, challenge is made to the order of the Family Court where calculation has been made with regard to the amount of arrears due. In this petition, Sri S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, has urged that the wife could in execution proceedings claim an amount only for a period of one year prior to the institution of the petition for maintenance. 5. The Apex Court in Poongodi v. Thangavel, [2013 STPL(Web) 793 SC] dealing with this issue held as follows:- “6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha alias Ushadevi v. B.G. Shivananjappa [(2005) 4 SCC 468] it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali [ (1999) 5 SCC 672 ]. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali [ (1999) 5 SCC 672 ]. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon (supra). 7. The ratio of the decisions in the aforesaid cases squarely apply to the present case. The application dated 05.02.2002 filed by the appellants under Section 125(3) was in continuation of the earlier applications and for subsequent periods of default on the part of the Respondent. The first proviso to Section 125(3), therefore did not extinguish or limit the entitlement of the appellants to the maintenance granted by the learned trial court, as has been held by the High Court. 8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21.04.2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the date of filing of the Maintenance Petition (M.C. No. 1/1993) i.e. 4.2.1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September, 2013 payable on or before 7th of October, 2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the Respondent, the learned Trial Court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the respondent and ensure that the same is executed and the respondent taken into custody to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The appeal is allowed.” 6. The Apex Court has clearly held that the liability to pay maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. is a continuing liability and does not get extinguished. In any event, while dealing with a petitioner who is claiming discretionary relief under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court can mould the relief in such a manner so as to advance the cause of justice. In any event, while dealing with a petitioner who is claiming discretionary relief under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court can mould the relief in such a manner so as to advance the cause of justice. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to reject the claim of the wife for grant of maintenance for that period which may be beyond the period of one year from the date of filing of her petition. 7. This effectively means that the petitioner has to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f. May, 2009 till December, 2014, i.e. for a period of 5 years and 8 months, i.e. 68 months in all. That comes to Rs. 3,40,000/-. Admittedly, even as per the wife, the husband paid the maintenance allowance up to May, 2010, i.e. for 13 months, i.e. a sum of Rs. 65,000/- has been paid and the balance payable is Rs. 2,75,000/-. The husband-petitioner has produced before me the calculations which show that a sum of Rs. 38,800/- was paid through Court and a sum of Rs. 1,74,800/- was paid through bank deposits and Rs. 2,500/- by money order. Therefore, the total amount of maintenance paid by the husband to the wife works out to Rs. 2,16,100/-. Therefore, the amount of arrears payable as on December, 2014 works out to Rs. 58,900/-. 8. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that w.e.f. January, 2015 the petitioner-husband shall pay Rs. 7,500/- per month to the respondent-wife Smti. Mamata Bhattacharjee by depositing it in her bank account No. 8002012104928 in Tripura Gramin Bank, Bordowali Branch on or before the 15th of every month. Rs. 5,000/- shall be towards the monthly maintenance due and Rs. 2,500/- shall be adjusted towards the arrears till the entire arrears are paid off. 9. With this observation, the petitions are disposed of. 10. Send down the lower court records forthwith.