Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 984 (RAJ)

Parasmal, S/o Shri Madan Lal v. Sangeeta, W/o Parasmal, W/o Shri Navratan

2025-04-01

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
Order : (MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.) Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 01.06.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Cr. Appeal No.135/2023 whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metro in Cr. Misc. Case No.75/2021, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application under Section 6(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w Section 125(3)Cr.P.c. filed by the respondents. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondents filed an application under Section 6(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate stating that the respondents had filed an application under Section 23 of DV Act against the petitioner, which was partly allowed on 29.06.2019 and the petitioner was ordered to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondents from the date of application i.e. 22.05.2018. Against the said interim maintenance order, an appeal was preferred by the respondents, which was decided by the appellate court on 09.01.2020 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of application i.e. 22.05.2018. The petitioner was also directed to pay due interim maintenance amount between 22.05.2018 to 29.06.2019 within two months from the date of order i.e. 09.01.2020. Apart from that, the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as house rent to the respondents. It was further averred in the application that as per the appellate court order, the due maintenance amount between 22.05.2018 to 22.01.2020 i.e. 20 months, is Rs.1,20,000/- and out of which, some payment was made by the petitioner. It was prayed that the due maintenance amount between 22.01.2020 to 22.09.2021 i.e. 21 months, is about 1,68,000/- and the petitioner may be directed to pay the same to the respondents, failing which, arrest warrant be issued against the petitioner. 3. It was prayed that the due maintenance amount between 22.01.2020 to 22.09.2021 i.e. 21 months, is about 1,68,000/- and the petitioner may be directed to pay the same to the respondents, failing which, arrest warrant be issued against the petitioner. 3. A detailed reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner stating the due maintenance amount between 22.05.2018 to 22.01.2020 had already been paid by him and so far as the prayer made by the respondents in the application regarding payment of due maintenance amount of Rs.1,68,000/- for a period of 21 months i.e. from 22.01.2020 to 22.09.2021, is concerned, the same is not maintainable as per the rules. According to the Rules, the respondents are not entitled to receive maintenance amount for more than 12 months and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.08.2023 allowed the application filed by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2023, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2024. Hence, this revision petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are erroneous, perverse, illegal and have been passed mechanically without application of mind. Counsel submits that as per proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the respondents ought to have filed the application for recovery of due maintenance amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. In the present case, the respondents filed application for recovery of maintenance amount after 21 months and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, but the learned courts below did not consider this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned orders in a cursory manner. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of In Re A Ref. U/s 395 Cr.P.C. by District & Sessions Judge, Pali Vs. Unknown, DB Cr. Reference No.2/2020, decided on 03.12.2021. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned Courts below did not commit any error in passing the impugned orders. U/s 395 Cr.P.C. by District & Sessions Judge, Pali Vs. Unknown, DB Cr. Reference No.2/2020, decided on 03.12.2021. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the learned Courts below did not commit any error in passing the impugned orders. Nonetheless, he concedes that pursuant to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., an application for the enforcement of said amount must be filed with the court within one year from the date it becomes due, as articulated by the counsel for the petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the provision of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.and the case law cited by the counsel for the petitioner. Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. reproduced as under : Section 123 (3):- If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made : Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: ………... 8. Proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. serves a vital mechanism for enforcing maintenance orders with a clear focus on the welfare of individual entitled to maintenance. It stipulates that an application has to be filed to the Court to levy the amount due and that such application should be made within a period of one year from the date on which the amount becomes due. The legislature has made it clear that even though the maintenance, which is awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is recurring every month, an option has been given to the claimant to file an application for the recovery of the amount within a period of one year from the date on which it becomes dues. 9. The legislature has made it clear that even though the maintenance, which is awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is recurring every month, an option has been given to the claimant to file an application for the recovery of the amount within a period of one year from the date on which it becomes dues. 9. In the present case, it is not disputed that initially the respondents filed an application for recovery of due maintenance amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, which is due between 22.05.2018 to 22.01.2020 and the said due maintenance amount was paid by the petitioners. Thereafter, again the respondents filed an application for payment of due maintenance amount of Rs.1,68,000/- which is due from 22.01.2020 to 22.09.2021, i.e. for a period of 21 months. The said application was allowed by the courts below. 10. According to the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the said application ought to have been filed by the respondents within a period of one year from the date the maintenance amount becomes due. But the learned courts below passed the impugned orders without taking into consideration the aforesaid proviso of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Even, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid reference has specifically observed that application for recoveries cannot be made for a period of more than one year’s arrears. 11. In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are entitled to get the due maintenance amount only for a period of 12 months, instead of 21 months as claimed by them in the application. 12. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of with the direction that instead of 21 months’ due maintenance amount, the respondents shall be entitled to get 12 months’ due maintenance amount from the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 01.06.2024 & 18.08.2023, passed by the courts below are modified accordingly. 13. Stay application is also decided. 14. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.