The subsequent application for specifying the exact amount due is only supplemental or incidental to the petition already filed earlier within the period of limitation, and Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter.

I. Heard on I.A. No. 1/07, an application for condonation of delay.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and the delay in preferring this revision is condoned.

3. This revision is directed against the order dated 2.12.2006 passed by the learned judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC No. 841/05 whereby learned Judge in an execution proceeding for recovery of maintenance amount awarded in MJC No. 160/06 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur has directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the applicant herein for recovery of maintenance amount of Rs. 36,000/- due and payable to the respondent herein.

4. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the applicant in the present application is that as per proviso to section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. no warrant could have been issued for recovery of any amount due under this section unless the application is made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date it become due, However, levy warrant has been issued for recovery of maintenance amount for a period of three years, which is not permissible under the law.

5. From perusal of the record it appears that order of maintenance was passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4.11.2004 and respondent herein has filed the execution proceeding before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the month of February, 2005 itself i.e. within a period of one year from the date of passing of the order.

6. In the matter of Shantha alias Ushadevi and another Vs. B. G. Shivananjappa1 the Hon'ble Apex Court while appreciating the question whether the bar of limitation in reference to the proviso to section 125(3) is attracted in the light of facts of that case has held that the amount of maintenance became due from the date on which the Magistrate passes the order of maintenance and in order to seek recovery of all the amount due by issuance of warrant, application shall be made within a period of one year from the date the amount became due. Once the application for recovery is filed, within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. one year from the date of passing of the order and the same was pending all through and if subsequent application is filed only to mention the amount due upto that date, then it cannot be construed that the application for execution of the order by issuing warrant of arrest under section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. was a fresh application made for the first time. The subsequent application is only for the purpose of specifying the exact amount which accrued due upto that date and thus, such application is only supplemental or incidental to the petition already filed earlier within the period of limitation.

7. Further in Pam 18 it has been held that "while dealing with such matter it must be borne in mind that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is unreasonable to insist of filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability".

8. In the instant case also it is not in dispute that the application for issuance of levy warrant was filed in the month of February, 2005 and subsequent application filed by the respondent herein was just to specify the amount which became due on the date of filing of that application and therefore, the same cannot be construed a separate application for execution of the order by issuing a warrant under section 125(3).

9. In the result, the revision is devoid of any merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

Revision Rejected.