( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7-4-2003 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 182 of 2002 by the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, by which, that petition has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present matter are: The respondent, who is admittedly the wife of the petitioner, had filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner and that petition was allowed on 30-10-1999 awarding maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from the date of petition. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision petition No. 297 of 1999 before the Court of Sessions at Bijapur, which was dismissed on 22-10-2001. Within five days thereafter, on 27-10-2001, the respondent-wife filed Cri. Misc. No. 84 of 2001 for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period from 5-7-1996 to 27-10-2001 (i. e. , from the date of filing petition under Section 125 of the cr. P. C. to the date of filing recovery petition ). In that proceeding, warrant came to be issued against the petitioner. Challenging that, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions in Criminal Revision petition No. 182 of 2002, which upheld the warrant ordered by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the petition with cost, as noted already. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties. It was vehemently argued for the petitioner-husband that in view of the proviso to Section 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C. , the arrears of maintenance cannot be recovered for the period beyond one year i. e. , the amount of arrears accrued for more than one year upto the date of filing recovery petition cannot be recovered. On the other hand, it was submitted for the respondent-wife that as the revision petition filed against the order of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate was pending till 22-10-2001, the period of one year requires to be computed from that date and not from 30-10-1999 - the date on which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was allowed awarding maintenance. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Jagannath Patra v. Purnamashi Saraf and Another, AIR 1968 Ori. 35 : 1968 Cri. L. J. 335 (Ori.)

( 4 ) THE only point for consideration is:"whether the respondent could claim maintenance from the date of petition till 27-10-2001 i. e. , for a period of more than one year earlier to the petition filed to recover the arrears of maintenance amount?"

( 5 ) IT is admitted by the parties that when the petitioner filed revision petition challenging the order of maintenance passed against him, there was stay of that order and that came to be vacated on 4-1-2000. So, it was argued for the petitioner that the respondent could have enforced the order of maintenance on 4-1-2000 or at any time within a period of one year from that date but not thereafter, claiming arrears accrued till the date of filing recovery petition. In that connection, placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Lakshman Rao Sakharam Survase v Smt. Mangold, 1990 (3) Kar. L. J. 346 : ILR 1991 Kar. 637 : 1991 Cri. L. J. 1980 (Kar.)

( 6 ) IN the said decision, there was stay (in operation) till the disposal of the revision petition by the Sessions Court and as such, this Court took the view that the period of one year has to be computed from the date of dismissal of the revision petition. So, said decision could have helped the respondent, provided the stay given in the revision petition filed by the petitioner had remained in force till the disposal of the revision petition. But, it is not so and the stay came to be vacated on 4-1-2000 admittedly. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without adverting himself to the facts of the case which were before this Court in the case of Lakshman Rao Sakharam Survase, erroneously held that