The amount of maintenance does not become barred by limitation simply because the order for maintenance was passed more than one year after the date of the original application.

( 1 ) THE instant Revisional Application by the petitioner-wife (hereinafter referred to as wife) is directed against the order dated June 15, 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suri, Birbhum, in Criminal Motion No. 4 of 1992 before him, praying the Court for setting aside the said order on the grounds set forth therein.

( 2 ) THE wife had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shortened into Code) before the Second Court of the Judicial Magistrate at Suri Birbhum, in the early part of 1985, registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 1985 T. R. No. 184 of 1985 against the opposite-party-husband (hereinafter referred to as husband claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- only for herself and sum of Rs. 75/- only for her minor son per month on the grounds stated therein. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties concerned had allowed the wife's said application in part by his judgment and order dated November 10, 1987 directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-only per month for the wife and a sum of Rs. 75/- only per month for the minor son. The wife had thereupon put the said order to execution on 9. 3. 1988 under Section 125 (3) of the Code, registered as Misc. Execution Case No. 7 of 1988.

( 3 ) AFTER getting notice of the said Execution Case, the husband had appeared and filed an objection before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10. 8. 91 on the ground of limitation contending that the wife would not be entitled to get maintenance for more than 12 months. The learned Magistrate, upon hearing the parties, had rejected the husband's aforesaid application by his order dated December 7, 1991 for the reasons recorded by him.

( 4 ) THE husband had thereafter moved a Revisional Application against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate dated 7. 12. 91 before the learned Sessions Judge at Suri, Birbhum, registered as Criminal Motion No. 4 of 1992. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Suri, Birbhum, had allowed the said Revisional Application by his judgment and order dated June 15, 1992 setting aside the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate for the reasons recorded by him.

( 5 ) BEING aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the wife has exercised this Court in Revision on the grounds made out by her.

( 6 ) IT is an admitted position that the application for maintenance filed by the wife against the husband had been allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned by his order dated 10. 11. 1987 directing the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and her minor son at the rates indicated above from February, 1985. The wife had thereupon filed an application on 9. 3. 88 before the learned Magistrate for recovery of maintenance from the husband in terms of the said order from February, 1985 to February, 1988, whereupon the husband had filed an objection before the learned Magistrate on the ground of limitation contending that the wife would not be entitled to claim maintenance for more than 12 months. The husband's said plea had been overruled by the learned Magistrate, but was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order for the reasons recorded therein, The learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying upon the decisions in Muddari Bin v. Sukdeo Bin, and Jangam Srinivasa Rao v. Jangam Rajeswari and Anr. , 1990 Cr. L. J. 2506, which do not at all appear to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant proceedings, was of the opinion that the claim of maintenance exceeding 12 months in one petition is not acceptable and the wife would not be entitled to claim maintenance for a period of 12 months preceding the date of filing of the execution case. But the decision so arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge could hardly by sustained with the first proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code, as it is, which rea