D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dt. 21-7-88 passed by the II Addl. Judicial First Cl. Magistrate Machilipatnam in Crl. M. P. No. 397/88 in M. C. No. 18/84 which was confirmed by the sessions Judge, Machilipatnam in Crl. R. P. 94/88 on 14-11-88.

( 2 ) THE facts pertinent for decision of this petition are that Jangam Rajeswari the wife filed M. C. No. 18/84 claiming maintenance against her husband J. Srinivasa Rao. That petition was allowed on 8-10-85 and she was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 130//-P. M. from the date of the application i. e. 7-12-83. The husband did not pay the maintenance and hence the wife filed Crl. M P. No. 2386/85 for realisation of the maintenance amount by arresting and sending the petitioner to jail. By an order dt, 27-7-86 the Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the wife refuted to join her husband without any valid grounds. The Magistrate found that there was sufficient cause for not complying with the provisions ff Sec. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. Against that order revision petition No. 1/87 was filed in ti c ccurt of the Sessions Judge. in the meanwhile immediately after the dismissal of Ihe petition i. e. Crl. M. P. No. 2386/85, the wife fifed crl. M. P. 1088/86 for realisation of the maintenance amount by attachment of 1/3rd salary of the husband. Tl> is petition was also dismissed on 3-10-86 on the ground that as the earlier application s\as dismissed and the mainte- nance order was cancelled this petition is not maintainable. Subsequently the Sessions Com t allowed Crl. R P. No 1/87 and set aside the order dismissing Crl. M. P. No. 2386/85. No revision was filed against the dismissal order of Crl. M. P. No. 1088/86.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to the revision being allowed by the Sessions court, the wife filed Crl. M. P. No. 397/88 for realisation of maintenance doe to her. The Magisuate by an order dt. 21-7-88 sentenced the petitioner to undergo R. I. for one week for each month s default and as there was default in payment of maintenance for a period of 50 months, he sentenced the husband to undergo R. 1. tor a total period of 350 days. Crl. R. P. 94/88 filed against this order was dismissed on 14-11-88 and the Magistrate s order was confirmed. Now the present petition is filed to quash the order in crl. M. P. No. 397/88 which was confirmed in Crl. R. P. No. 94/88 on 14-11-88.

( 4 ) IN these proceedings Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy raised three arguments viz. , (1) the order in Crl. M. P. No: 1088/86 clearly indicates that the c rder of maintenance in M. C. No. 18/84 has been cancelled. That order has not been challenged in revision and it has become final and hence the order in M. C. No. 18/84 no longer subsists. Hence the present petition Crl. M. P. 397/88 is not at all maintainable. (2) Assuming for a moment that the order of maintenance is subsisting under the Criminal Procedure Code no petition can be filed under Sec. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. for realising the arrears accumulated for more than one year. The first proviso to Sec. 125 (3) cr. P. C. clearly puts an embargo on a wife accumulating arrears of maintenance beyond a period of 12 months. (3) The last argument is that during the pendency of these proceedings as a result of the orders in crl. M. P. No. 2707/88 the husband paid Rs. 3,250/ -. This payment has necessarily to be appropriated to the amount that can be realised or collected by way of the warrant. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any more amount by pursuing Cil. M. P. No. 397/88.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent it is contended that in a petition for arrest of the maintenance-payer there is no limit of 12 months and the court is justified in sentencing the petitioner for imprisonment for 350 days at the rate of one week for each default. It is further contended that the order of maintenance cannot be cancelled either in Crl M. P. No. 2386/85 or in crl. M. P. 1088/86. Those are applications under Sec. 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document