Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
KALIDAS MUKHERJEE
Sri Khokan Bhunia
Versus
Smt. Dipali Bhunia & Another
C.R.R. Appeal No.521 of 2005
Decided On : 21-01-2008
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125(3) CR.P.C. - PROVIDES THAT NO WIFE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAINTENANCE FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING TWELVE MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION - COURT HELD THAT UNREALIZED AMOUNT IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION CANNOT OPERATE AS BAR FOR CLAIMING THAT AMOUNT IN THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION - EXPRESSION 'FROM THE DATE ON WHICH IT BECAME DUE' SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH IT BECAME RECOVERABLE - APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF MAINTENANCE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF THE REVISIONAL APPLICATION IS VALID.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the revisional order affirming the order of the Magistrate directing him to pay maintenance to his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for a period of eight years. The petitioner contended that the claim for arrears of maintenance for the period of eight years is barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the wife's application for recovery of maintenance made in January 2004 after the dismissal of the revisional application on 22.12.2003 before the Hon'ble High Court, is to be treated as within one year under the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
Issues: Whether the claim for arrears of maintenance for the period of eight years is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression 'from the date on which it became due' should be construed as from the date on which it became recoverable. Unrealized amount in the previous application cannot operate as a bar for claiming that amount in the subsequent application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J.
1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No. 11 dated 31.01.2005 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Tamluk in criminal revision No. 54 of 2004/422 of 2004 affirming thereby the order dated 01.06.2004 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Haldia in Misc. Execution case No. 3 of 2004.
2. The case of the petitioner herein, in short, is that he was the opposite party in the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed against him by the O.P. No. 1 herein. The learned Magistrate allowed the Misc. Case directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to the O.P. No. 1 herein with effect from 28.03.1996. The petitioner herein preferred a revisional application bearing No. 273 of 1998 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore. The petitioner herein thereafter preferred a revisional application before the Hon’ble High Court bearing CRR No. 1074 of 2002 which was also dismissed on 22.12.2003 for default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the said CRR No. 1074 of 2002 and the hearing of the said application is still pending. The O.P. No. 1 herein filed an application on 03.08.2000 for non-payment of Rs.3,200/- towards maintenance from 1.4.2000 to 31.7.2000. The learned Magistrate was pleased to issue D/W for realization of the said amount. On 4.9.2000 the O.P. No. 1 herein filed a petition before the learned Magistrate for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner herein as nothing was recovered in execution of the D/W. The learned S.D.J.M. issued the warrant of arrest against the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed a petition to recall the warrant of arrest which was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 05.3.2001 fixing 04.4.2001 for E.R. of W/A. The petitioner preferred the Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2001 against the said order in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore bearing No. 127 of 2004 which is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Tamluk. In January, 2004 the O.P. No. 1 herein filed the Misc. Execution Case No. 3 of 2004 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Haldia claiming arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs.70,500/- for the period from 28.3.1996 to 31.12.2003. The petitioner appeared in the said execution case and filed written objection. The objection filed by the petitioner herein in the said Execution Case was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M. on 01.6.2004. The petitioner filed a Revisional Application bearing No. 54 of 2004/422 of 2004 challenging the order dated 1.6.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Haldia in Misc. Case No. 3 of 2004. By the impugned order dated 31.01.2005 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revisional Application and affirmed the order dated 01.6.2004 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Haldia. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haldia, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.
3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in one execution petition the arrears of maintenance has been claimed for the period of eight years which is not permissible under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel further submits that although the Revisional Application against the order for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, there was no bar on the part of the wife/O.P. No. 1 herein to file execution petition before the learned Magistrate for realization of arrears of maintenance, but, the execution petition was filed after the disposal of the Revisional Application by the Hon’ble High Court in connection with the Misc. Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming arrears of maintenance for the period of eight years. It is contended that the revisi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
