Honble N.K. JAIN, J. — This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar dated 21.3.87 whereby he uphold the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nohar dated 7.10.86.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that by the order dated 15.1283, the learned Magistrate ordered to grant maintenance of Rs. 200/-per month to the non-petitioner Smt. Jakali from the date of application i.e. from 1.6.81, which was maintained in revision filed by the petitioner Gangaram by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 3.6.85. Thereafter, an application was filed on 19.6.85, by the wife Smt. Jakali for payment of arrears of maintenance from 1.6.81 to 1.6.85. @ Rs. 200/- per month, alleging that she got Rs. 200/- out of that during the months and is entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,400/-and future maintenance, otherwise in default the husband Gangaram may be sent to jail. In reply, the petitioner has stated that arrears from 1.6.81 to 1.6.84 are beyond one year as such neither the non-petitioner entitled nor the court can issue warrants for the arrears of that period. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate has rejected the objections and issued warrant of attachment to realise the amount and awarded arrears on 7.10.86. A revision was filed but the same was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C.

3. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under proviso to sub-section (3) of Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. there is clear bar and this bar is mandatory and therefore, courts below have erred in awarding main-tenance for the period from 1.6.81 to 1.6.84 and this Court under the inherent power can quash the impugned order. He has also placed reliance on the decisi-on of Rabari Nagjibhai v. Bai Zaber(l) and Hagiri Devi v. Budhiram Behera (2).

4. Mr. Doongar Singh learned counsel for the non-petitioner has not disputed this proposition of law.

5. I have heard Mr. 3hagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the non-petitioner and perused the record.

6. It is true that one can claim arrears for a period of one year from the date of filing of the application u/s 125 (3) Cr. PC and the court does not have power to grant arrears beyond the period of one year.

7. In Rabari Nagjibhai Vs. Bai Zaber (supra) wife filed an application on 5th Jan. 72 for recovery of arrears of maintenance for a period of ?4 months i.e. for the period between 4.2.69 and 31.12.71. The court observed that merely filing application for setting aside that exparte order on 27th July 70 which came to be dismissed on 6.12.1971, could not be treated as any legal impediment for enforcing the order passed in favour of the wife. Admittedly, no such application was filed and there being no legal impediment. The court further observed that so far as maintenance amount was ordered for the period between the date of application and the date of order & other amounts of maintenance became due every month. It has been held that as it was impossible to bring the case within the provision of the Indian Limitation Act the applica-tion was time barred.

8. in Hagiri Devi vs. Budhiram Behera (supra) wife was granted mainten-ance of Rs.20/- per month but the opposite party committed default in payment. Orders have been made in favour of the wife for claiming arrears by both the courts. Husband filed a writ against these orders. The Court held that the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Sec. 125 Cr. PC is clear and unambiguous. Acquiescence of the opposite party cannot confer jurisdiction on the Magistrate to enlarge the same. In certain circumstances, an application can be made for a period beyond one year e.g., where a pending application has been closed for statistical purposes and fresh application is filed for the period covered by the earlier application and the period subsequent there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document