B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision rather poses an important question as to whether the limitation of one year under the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. is applicable to the minors for enforcing the order of maintenance passed in their favour.

( 2 ) FOUR minor children, two male and two female, represented by their mother are the petitioners herein. The 1st respondent is their father. On the ground that the 1st respondent neglected the wife and the children, the wife on her behalf and also as a guardian of the minor children initiated proceedings in M. C. No. 9 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar for the grant of maintenance to her and her minor children. The order of maintenance sought for was granted but on revision by the 1st respondent to the Court of Sessions, the latter while setting aside the maintenance order in favour of the wife, sustained the order of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioners. The order of the Court of Sessions is dated 26-2-1990. The petitioners filed Criminal M. P. No. 288/90 claiming arrears of Rs. 10,800. 00 for 54 months and seeking issuance of distress warrants for the recovery of the said amounts and on 22-10-1990, such warrants were issued. The issuance of such warrants was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing a revision in the Court of Sessions, but the said Court dismissed the same, thus, confirming the distress warrants. During the pendency of the distress warrants, another petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners in Cri. M. P. No. 571/91, dated 17-12-1991 for recovery of arrears of Rs. 2,400. 00 for the period from 10-12-1990 to 10-12-1991 and the Court of Magistrate has again issued warrants for realisation of the said amount. As the warrants were returned on the ground that no properties were available, Cri. M. P. No. 288/90 was dismissed with endorsement that the sum claimed in the said petition is clubbed with Cri. M. P. No. 571/91, for composite action. When the order was to be enforced for realisation of Rs. 13,200. 00 the 1st respondent has filed a revision before the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar contending that the claim for maintenance was time-barred as most of the amount claimed was for the period beyond one year as on the date of the filing of the Criminal M. P. No. 571/91. The said contention found favour with the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Criminal R. P. 10 of 1992 and by order dated 29-6-1992, the revision was allowed setting aside the order of enforcement passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar in Criminal M. P. No. 571/91 which provoked the petitioners to file this revision.

( 3 ) THE 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. pleaded on behalf of the 1st respondent reads :"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. "mr. C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the Court of Magistrate is valid and sound and that there were no grounds to reverse the same by the Court of Sessions. Mr. K. Mahipathi Rao, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contends to the contra. His contention is that as the pending application for enforcement was filed admittedly beyond the period of one year, the same is time-barred and the dismissal of Criminal M. P. No. 288/90 will not save the limitation and on the other hand has extinguished the right.

( 4 ) THIS is not a case dealing with enforcement of a major-maintenance holders like wife, father or mother. This enforcement claim pertains to the minor-children. May be, the minor children are represented by their next friend and guardian i. e. their mother, who is the wife of the 1st respondent. But, that makes no difference as even though the applicatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document