Can the pace of execution proceedings before the Family Courts under S.125 Cr.P.C, be quickened? Should warrants both under Ss.421(1)(a) and (b) Cr.P.C. be issued invariably in every case before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed under S.125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of the amount payable? Is it the law that the courts, even after being satisfied that the defaulter has no movable or immovable property, must ritualistically issue warrants both under Ss.421(1)(a) and (b) Cr.P.C. and wait for the return of both warrants before passing an order imposing sentence under S.125(3) Cr. P.C.? Do the decisions in Nithiyanandan v. Radhamani (1980 KLT 537) and Kuttappan v. Vijayamma (2001 (3) KLT 451) insist on inflexible adherence to such a procedure? These questions of relevance have come up for consideration before me in this R.P.(F.C.).

2. My experience in this jurisdiction shows that there is lot of avoidable unnecessary delay in the expeditious execution of orders under S.125(3) Cr.P.C. and it is hence that I wanted these aspects to beargued in detail. Both counsel have helped this Court to consider these questions. Advocate Mr. K.P. Sudheer was requested to assist this Court as amicus curiae. I must mention that the learned counsel has been of great help to this Court and has assisted this Court with his in depth research on the subject.

2A. To the vital and crucial facts first. The 1st respondent herein-the wife, claimed maintenance under S.125 Cr.P.C. The claim was staked and the petition was filed on 17.2003. The proceedings was numbered as M.C.No.64/03. Long later on 30.11.2005, an order was passed under S.125 Cr.P.C. obliging the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.800/-per mensem with effect from 17.2003. Within one year of the date of the order under which the amounts became due, the respondent/wife filed an application for execution of the order, on 18.2006 claiming the amounts due from 17.2003 to 18.2006.

3. Theapplication for execution was received on file. Notice was issued. The petitioner was served. He entered appearance through counsel. He requested for time to make payment. He did not make any payment. In these circumstances, at last distress warrant under S.421(1)(a) was issued initially; but no amounts were recovered. No warrant was issued under S.421(1)(b) Cr.P.C. On 12.2007 a nonbailable warrant was issued. The petitioner was arrested long later and was produced before court on 10.2007. He was remanded to custody. He was heard and on 110.2007 the impugned order was passed sentencing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. The petitioner challenges that order in this Revision Petition.

4. Four specific contentions are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all it is contended that the petition for execution was filed only on 18.2006 and the claim was "for execution of the order of maintenance for the period from 17.2003 to 18.2006 -a period of exceeding one year. The contention is that under S.125 Cr.P.C. a warrant can be issued only for recovery of maintenance for a period of 12 months.

5. I find no merit in this contention at all. The first proviso to S.125(3) Cr.P.C. on which reliance is placed reads as follows:

"Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this 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." (emphasis supplied)

6. In this case maintenance became due as per the order dated 30.11.2005. Even tough the claim was filed on 17.2003, the amount became due and payable only when the order under S.125 was passed on 30.11.2005. The petition for execution was filed on 18.2006 i.e., within one year of 30.11.2005, and, in these circumstances, there is no merit in the contention that the first proviso bars the claim because the amount claimed is for a period of 37 months. The mandate of the first proviso is only that war