M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

These Criminal Petitions, under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), are filed challenging the warrants issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram, for attachment of salary of the petitioner herein, by exercising power under sub-Section (3) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in the applications filed by the first respondent herein for realization of the maintenance amount for different periods.

2. The details of maintenance amount for different periods are mentioned hereunder for better appreciation:

Sl.No.	Crl.P. No.	M.P. No.	Period	Maintenance awarded per month	Total amount
1	199 of 2015	428 of 2010	05.12.2008 to 06.06.2010	500/-	16,000/-
2	201 of 2015	73 of 2014	07.02.2013 to 07.07.2014	500/-	16,000/-
3	203 of 2015	26 of 2013	07.06.2010 to 06.02.2013	500/-	16,000/-
4	209 of 2015	1993 of 2008	04.08.2007 to 04.12.2008	500/-	16,000/-

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the maintenance order was passed on 14.10.1996 in M.C. No.13 of 1994 awarding maintenance at Rs. 200/- per month to the first respondent from the date of filing petition and by order dated 11.04.2000 in M.C. No.1 of 2000, the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at enhanced rate of Rs. 500/- per month. Thereafter first respondent filed the petition for realization of arrears of maintenance by attachment of salary of petitioner accordingly, the salary attachment warrants were issued for recovery of monthly maintenance amount at enhanced rate in M.C.No. 1 of 2000 dated 11.04.2000, for different periods referred to supra. The main challenge of the petitioner is that the claim of the first respondent for recovery of maintenance amount, for different periods referred to supra, is barred by limitation under sub-Section (3) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and that the trial court did not afford any opportunity to him as required under sub-Section (3) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and salary attachment warrant issued straight away without affording an opportunity to explain the reason for non-payment of maintenance, is in violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, warrants issued for attachment of salary, for realization of the maintenance amount, is erroneous and prayed to set aside the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during hearing, contended that issue of warrants for recovery of maintenance amount is illegal for the simple reason that no opportunity was afforded to explain the reason, thereby issue of warrant is violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. He also contended that the claim for various periods referred to supra is barred by limitation and at best, the first respondent is entitled to recover the maintenance for one year prior to the date of filing the petition, but the trial court did not consider the same in proper perspective and prayed to set aside the same.

5. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the bar contemplated under sub-Section (3) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has no application and the maintenance amount can be recovered irrespective of the period fixed in sub-Section (3) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Uttam Das v. State of West Bengal And Another, (2012) CJ (Cal.) 1133, Shantha, Usha Devi v. B.G. Shivananjappa, (2005) CJ (Sc) 1225, and Poongodi And Another v. Thangavel, (2013) CJ (Sc) 2130 in support of his contention and prayed to confirm the warrants, for attachment of salary of the petitioner, issued by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ichapuram.

6. The first and foremost contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that necessary procedure is prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for rea