( 1 ) THE short point that falls for determination in this Criminal Petition filed u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. is whether in an application filed u/s. (3) of S. 125, Cr. P. C. by a person awarded maintenance u/sub-s. (1) of S. 125, Cr. P. C. , no warrant shall be issued by the Magistrate for the recovery of any amount beyond the period of one year prior to the date on which it became due by virtue of the first proviso to S. 125 (3), Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the husband of the respondent. Respondent filed an application u/s. 125 (1) Cr. P. C. in the Court of the J. M. F. C. II Court, Bijapur, (for short 'the Magistrate') in Cr. Misc. case No. 97/81 for recovery of maintenance from the petitioner. After contest, respondent's petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent at Rs. 200/- per month from the date of her application by order dated 18-9-87 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 97/81.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by that order, petitioner filed Cr. Disc. Rev. Petn. No. 183/87 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Bijapur and obtained stay of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 18-9-87. The said Revision Petition was dismissed on 15-2-88. Thereafter, respondent filed an application u/s. 128, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the learned Magistrate in Cr. Misc. No. 170/88 for recovery of arrears of maintenance due to her by the petitioner for the period from 23-9-81 to 23-10-88 amounting to Rs. 17,100/ -. Petitioner contended in the said case that the respondent cannot claim and recover main tenance from him for any period beyond one year from the date of her application by virtue of the proviso to S. 125 (3), Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate negatived that contention by order dated 20-7-1889.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by that order, petitioner filed a Revision u/s. 397. Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge in Cr. Rev. No. 298/89. By order dated 16-3-90, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate on 20-7-89. It is against the said concurrent orders of the two Courts below that the petitioner has filed this Criminal Petition u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. contending that under the first proviso to S. 125 (3), Cr. P. C. no order for recovery of maintenance could be passed if an application is filed after a lapse of one year and, therefore, the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the right to file an application for recovery of alleged arrears of maintenance arose only on 6-7-89 when this Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner against the maintenance order of the learned Magistrate confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge In revision.

( 5 ) THE same contention was strenuously urged by Sri. M. Mahabaleshwar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on one decision of the Orissa High Court and another decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jagannath Patra v. Purnamashi, AIR 1968 Orissa 35: 1968 Cri LJ 335 and Govind Sahai v. Prem Devi, 1988 Cri LJ 638.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri Mohan Shanthangoudar, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the present petition filed u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable as it is virtually a second Revision Petition filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner's Revision Petition by labelling it as filed u/s. 482, Cr P. C. He placed reliance in support of his contention on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rajan Kumar Manchandha v State of Karnataka, 1990 SC cases (Cri) 537. He also contended that the maintenance order is sought to be executed by the respondent by filing a petition u/s. 128, Cr. P. C. and not u/s. 125 Cr. P. C. and even otherwise, the application filed by the respondent is in time as the maintenance order became final only when the Revision Petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and during pendency of which stay of the maintenance order granted by the lear