Back
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Rina Sarkar – Appellant
Versus
Kajal Sarkar – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a petitioner who filed for recovery of arrear maintenance from her husband, which was initially ordered but later rejected on the grounds of limitation under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s marriage and subsequent separation led her to seek maintenance, which was ordered but not fully paid, resulting in multiple execution cases for recovery of arrears (!) .
The core issue examined by the court is whether a fresh application for recovery of arrears beyond one year from the due date is permissible under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C., given the limitation clause (!) (!) .
The court clarified that Section 125(3) imposes a limitation of one year from the date the arrear amount becomes due for filing an application for recovery, and arrears beyond this period cannot be recovered through criminal proceedings (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the limitation is intended to provide immediate relief and that a civil remedy remains available for recovering arrears beyond one year (!) (!) .
The court noted that the petitioner’s previous applications for recovery of arrears from 2007 to 2014 were barred by this limitation, and a subsequent fresh application combining these arrears was also not permissible under the law (!) (!) .
The judgment reaffirmed that arrears of maintenance are a continuing liability, but recovery through criminal proceedings is limited to arrears within the one-year period from when they fell due (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the lower court’s order that rejected recovery of arrears beyond the limitation period, and clarified that recovery of arrears beyond one year is a civil matter (!) .
The decision underscores that the purpose of the limitation clause is to ensure prompt enforcement of maintenance orders, and failure to act within the prescribed period precludes recovery through criminal proceedings, though civil remedies remain available (!) (!) .
The court directed that the case diary be returned and that copies of the judgment be sent to the lower court for information, with the interim order vacated (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively summarize the court’s reasoning, the legal principles applied, and the final ruling concerning the limitation on recovery of arrears of maintenance under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. By filing this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/wife has challenged the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum in Misc. Execution Case No. 100 of 2015 in connection with Misc. Case No. 35/97 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thereby rejected the prayer of the petitioner to recover the amount due under Section 125 (3) on the ground that the execution case filed beyond the period of limitation and time barred.
2. The factual matrix of the instant case is that the petitioner herein got married with one Kajal Sarkar, opposite party herein according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Ahmadpur on 16th January, 1996. The opposite party was in Indian Military Service at the time of marriage. Petitioner was compelled to leave the house of the opposite party as such she started living separately. To meet necessary expenses, she filed a Misc. Case No. 35 of 1997 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum. At the sa
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
