An application for recovery of maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. must be filed within one year from the date it becomes due; claims beyond this period are not maintainable.

Order :

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 01.06.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Cr. Appeal No.135/2023 whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 18.08.2023, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur Metro in Cr. Misc. Case No.75/2021, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application under Section 6(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w Section 125(3)Cr.P.c. filed by the respondents.

2. Facts in brief are that the respondents filed an application under Section 6(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 R/w Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate stating that the respondents had filed an application under Section 23 of DV Act against the petitioner, which was partly allowed on 29.06.2019 and the petitioner was ordered to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month to the respondents from the date of application i.e. 22.05.2018. Against the said interim maintenance order, an appeal was preferred by the respondents, which was decided by the appellate court on 09.01.2020 directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondents from the date of application i.e. 22.05.2018. The petitioner was also directed to pay due interim maintenance amount between 22.05.2018 to 29.06.2019 within two months from the date of order i.e. 09.01.2020. Apart from that, the petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as house rent to the respondents. It was further averred in the application that as per the appellate court order, the due maintenance amount between 22.05.2018 to 22.01.2020 i.e. 20 months, is Rs.1,20,000/- and out of which, some payment was made by the petitioner. It was prayed that the due maintenance amount between 22.01.2020 to 22.09.2021 i.e. 21 months, is about 1,68,000/- and the petitioner may be directed to pay the same to the respondents, failing which, arrest warrant be issued against the petitioner.

3. A detailed reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioner stating the due maintenance amount between 22.05.2018 to 22.01.2020 had already been paid by him and so far as the prayer made by the respondents in the application regarding payment of due maintenance amount of Rs.1,68,000/- for a period of 21 months i.e. from 22.01.2020 to 22.09.2021, is concerned, the same is not maintainable as per the rules. According to the Rules, the respondents are not entitled to receive maintenance amount for more than 12 months and prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 18.08.2023 allowed the application filed by the respondents. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.08.2023, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.06.2024. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are erroneous, perverse, illegal and have been passed mechanically without application of mind. Counsel submits that as per proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the respondents ought to have filed the application for recovery of due maintenance amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. In the present case, the respondents filed application for recovery of maintenance amount after 21 months and therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed as not maintainable, but the learned courts below did not consider this aspect of the matter and passed the impugned orders in a cursory manner. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of In Re A Ref. U/s 395 Cr.P.C. by District & Sessions Judge, Pali