G. Sasidharan, J.

This petition is filed by the respondent in M.C. No. 31 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Chengannur. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the above case under S.125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance. The learned Magistrate passed an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-each. The petitioner filed revision in the Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara as Crl. R.P. No. 36 of 1996. The above revision was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge finding that there was no reason for interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed an Execution Petition, C.M.P. No. 2755 of 1999 in the Court of the judicial Magistrate of the First Class for realisation of maintenance arrears from 7.5.1996 to 7.7.1999 for respondents 1 and 3 and from 7.5.1996 to 7.11.1997 for the second respondent. The petitioner filed objection to the above petition contending that the Execution Petition is barred by limitation. C.M.P. No. 3224 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner under S.127 Cr. P.C. for altering the order of maintenance on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 had attained majority. The learned Magistrate allowed the application by order dated 23.11.1999. On 19.11.2000, the learned Magistrate made Annexure V order permitting execution of the order on finding that the Execution Petition is not barred by limitation. The above order is under challenge in this petition.

3. During the pendency of Crl. R.P. No. 36 of 1996 in the Additional Sessions Court, there was an interim order of stay of execution of the order of the learned Magistrate. Challenging the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision, Crl. M.C. No. 4703 of 1997 was filed in this Court. No stay was granted by this Court. The revision petition in the Additional Sessions Court was dismissed on 4.11.1997 and Crl. M.C. No. 4703 of 1997 was dismissed on 1.3.1999. The petition for recovery of arrears of maintenance was filed on 12.7.1999. According to the petitioner, since maintenance from 7.5.1996 is claimed, the claim for realisation of arrears of maintenance is barred by limitation. Since there was no stay during the pendency of Crl. M.C. No. 4703 of 1997 in this Court, nothing prevented the respondents from filing execution application in the court of the Magistrate claiming maintenance. But stay was granted by the Additional Sessions Court in the revision till 4.11.1997 and hence the respondents were prevented from taking steps for realisation of arrears of maintenance till 4.11.1997. Execution Petition was filed by the respondents in the court of the Magistrate one year after the disposal of the revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

4. The first proviso to sub-section (3) of S.125 Cr. P.C. says that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under that section unless application be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. Sub-s.(3) of S.125 Cr. P.C. says that when there is failure to pay maintenance without sufficient cause, the Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines. Under the above sub-section, the Magistrate may also sentence such person for the whole or part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made. Sub-s.(3) of S.125 Cr. P.C. gives the court two powers, one to issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and, two, sentence a person for the whole or part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made. In the first proviso to sub-s.(3) of S.125 Cr. P.C., the prohibition is only