B. Sudheendra Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.215 of 2013 on the files of the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. The respondents herein are the petitioners before the court below.

2. The respondents herein claimed an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.4000/- to the second respondent towards monthly maintenance. The respondents herein contended that the petitioner herein is a Driver by profession, earning Rs.20,000/- per month as wages. The petitioner herein refuted the allegation of the respondents.

3. The court below directed the petitioner herein to pay Rs.3,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.4000/- to the second respondent towards their monthly maintenance.

4. Heard both sides.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contentions of the petitioner were struck off by the court below on the mere reason that the petitioner did not pay the arrears of maintenance due to the respondents herein.

6. It is clear from the judgment impugned that the court below struck off the contentions of the petitioner herein on the reason that the petitioner herein did not pay the arrears of maintenance.

7. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the court below was justified or not in striking off the contentions of the petitioner herein on the reason that the petitioner herein did not pay the arrears of maintenance.

8. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') is a measure of social justice and is specifically enacted to protect women, children and infirm parents and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents, who are in distress. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 Cr.P.C. is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.

9. Section 125(1) empowers the court to order maintenance or interim maintenance of wife, child or parents. Sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides as to how the order of maintenance is to be enforced. It will be beneficial to read sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which is extracted hereunder:

"If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] 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:

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:

Provided further that xxxx."

10. It is clear from sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. that if any person fails to comply with the direction of the court to pay the maintenance or interim maintenance, the Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's default to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment, if sooner made. The first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due, unless application is made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. does not create any bar on the entitlement of a claimant to arre