Important point
Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and the daughter and it is unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance to wife and daughter—Claim for arrears of maintenance amount—Plea of bar of limitation under the proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code—Maintainability—Trial Court by its order dated 20-1-1993 awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- to appellant wife and a sum of Rs. 300/- to the daughter for maintenance—Appellant filed application under Section 125(3) of the Code claiming an amount of Rs. 5,365/- as arrear maintenance calculated from 20-1-1993 to 31-8-1993—Revision filed against trial Court was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by its order dated 26-6-1997—Affirmation of order of trial Court by the High Court—Appellant claiming arrears of maintenance from 20-1-1993 till 16-6-1998, the date of filing this application—Claim of an amount of Rs. 46,000/- —Objection by respondent that claim of arrears of maintenance beyond a period of one year was barred by limitation—Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the claim as barred by limitation—(No) —Bar of limitation under the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. is not attracted—Liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability.
       Held : In order to recover the amount, as per the order of the Judicial Magistrate, the appellant filed Crl.Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 on 1.9.1993 showing the arrears of maintenance for the period of eight months. During the pendency of revision petition in the Sessions Court and the High Court, the respondent did not pay any amount nor did the Magistrate issue a warrant in terms of section 125(3). After the disposal of the matter by the High Court, the appellant filed an I.A. being I.A.No. 1 in Crl.Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 46,700/- being arrears due after the date of filing the petition, being the arrears due from the Trial Court’s Order (20th January, 1993) till the date of filing the I.A., i.e., 16th June, 1998. After the filing of the said I.A., the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 5,365/- towards arrears due for a period of eight months, i.e., from 20th January, 1993 to 31st August, 1993. The respondent-husband took the stand that no further amount was payable as the I.A. filed on 1st July, 1998 was barred by limitation under the first proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. According to the respondent, the arrears of maintenance for the said period of eight months only were recoverable under Section 125(3), in view of the Crl. Misc. Petition No. 476 of 1993 filed on 1.9.1993 wherein the issuance of warrant was sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,365/- due for about eight months. As already noticed, the learned Magistrate dismissed I.A. 1 of 1998 on the ground of limitation. However, the learned Sessions Judge having held that the bar of limitation did not apply, remitted the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal on a revision filed in the High Court by the husband, the present impugned order was passed allowing the revision and restoring the order of the Trial Court. (Para 5)
       The purpose of filing I.A. on 1st September, 1998 was only to mention the amount due upto date. The fact that the additional amount was specified in the I.A. does not mean that the application for execution of the order by issuing a warrant under Section 125(3) was a fresh application made for the first time. As already noticed, the main petition filed in the year 1993 was pending and kept alive and the filing of subsequent I.A. in 1998 was only to specify the exact amount which accrued due upto that date. Such application is only supplementary or incidental to the petition already filed in 1993 admittedly within the period of limitation. The fact that only a sum of Rs. 5,365/- representing the arrears of eight months was mentioned therein does not curtail the scope of Crl.Misc. Petition filed in 1993 more so when no action was taken thereon and it remained pending. We are, therefore, of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied and the High Court has erred in reversing the order of Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability. (Paras 7 and 8)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a social legislation intended for the welfare of wives and daughters, and it should be interpreted liberally to serve its social purpose (!) (!) .
The liability to pay maintenance under Section 125(1) is a continuous and ongoing obligation, and it is unreasonable to require the filing of successive applications for arrears of maintenance, as the obligation persists until fully paid (!) (!) .
An application filed under Section 125(3) for recovery of arrears of maintenance must be made within one year from the date the amount becomes due, as per the proviso to this section (!) (!) .
If an application for recovery of arrears is filed within the limitation period, subsequent applications to specify the amount due are considered supplementary or incidental to the original petition and do not constitute new applications subject to limitation (!) (!) .
In cases where the original petition remains pending and no warrant has been issued, filing an additional application to specify the arrears due up to a later date does not violate the limitation period, as it is part of the ongoing proceeding (!) .
The purpose of Section 125 is to ensure social welfare, and the law should be construed broadly to facilitate the enforcement of maintenance orders without undue procedural hurdles (!) (!) .
The courts have the authority to take appropriate steps for recovery if arrears are not paid within a specified period, and the proceedings should reflect the continuing nature of the obligation (!) .
The decision emphasizes that insisting on multiple applications for arrears, when the obligation is ongoing, is unreasonable and contrary to the legislative intent of Section 125 Cr.P.C. (!) .

If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document, please let me know.

Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—Leave granted.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Shantha @ Ushadevi and Kusuma, a minor represented by her mother-guardian filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Petition No. 2 of 1991 before the trial Court against respondent claiming for maintenance. The said criminal petition was allowed by the trial court by its order dated January 20, 1993 awarding a sum of Rs. 500/- to the appellant, the wife of the respondent and a sum of Rs. 300/- to Kusuma, the daughter for maintenance. The appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 47 of 1993 under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming an amount of Rs. 5,365/- as arrear maintenance calculated from January 20, 1993 (i.e. the date of the trial court’s order granting maintenance) to August 31, 1993. Respondent filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Tumkur being Crl. Revision Petition No. 35 of 1993 against the order passed by the trial court. This revision petition was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by its order dated June 26, 1997 affirming the order passed by the trial court. Thereafter, the respondent took up the matter before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by filing a criminal revision petition being Cr.R.P.No. 2297 of 1997 against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Tumkur on June 26, 1997. The said revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. After the affirmation of the order by the High Court, an interim application being I.A.1. was filed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 claiming arrears of maintenance for the period from January 20, 1993 i.e. the date of the trial court’s order till the date of filing the I.A.1, i.e., 16th June, 1998 for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-. The respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 5.365/- towards the maintenance from January 20, 1993 till August 31, 1993. However, IA-1 filed by the appellant for arrears of maintenance in Crl.Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 claiming maintenance of Rs. 46,000/- was objected by the respondent contending that the appellant cannot claim arrears of maintenance beyond a period of one year under first proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being barred by limitation. The trial court by its order dated July 13, 2000 dismissed the IA-1 being barred by limitation. The appellant thereafter filed a criminal revision which came to be registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 194/2000 before the learned Sessions Judge, Tumkur. The said criminal revision petition was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by its order dated November 23, 2002 and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. Learned Sessions Judge observed that there was no need of filing a fresh petition during the pendency of the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for maintenance which has fallen due for the period post application and it is implicit in the powers of the court to make an order directing the husband to make payment of arrears of maintenance up to the decision while disposing of the application for recovery of arrears of maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that it is not required to file a fresh application which may lead to multiplicity of litigations. Learned Sessions Judge further held that the I.A.1 filed in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 claiming maintenance was within limitation. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, respondent filed criminal revision being Crl.R.P.No. 753 of 2003 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge holding that the said application was barred by limitation. Aggrieved against this order of the High Court passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 753 of 2003 on March 11, 2004 the present Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellants.

3. It was submitted before the learned Sin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document