( 1 ) THIS is revision filed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 pudukottai, in Crl. M. P. No. 3309 of 1993, dated 4-7-1994, directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance to the respondent/minor daughter.

( 2 ) IT is contended in this revision by the petitioner, that under Section 125 (3), cr. P. C, execution petition can be filed claiming arrears of maintenance only for 12 months period, i. e. , one year, from the date on which it became due, but the order impugned in this revision has been passed by the learned Magistrate, allowing the claim for 29 months period. It is further submitted by Ms. T. Priya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the application under section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. , was not made within a period of one year from the date on which the amount became due. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision in govind Sahai vs. Prem Devi, wherein the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has held as follows:

"however, there is some substance in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Proviso to Sec. 125 (3), Cr. P. C. , expressly provides that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under Section 125 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. It may be mentioned here that the Judicial Magistrate, Malpura by his order dated Nov. 22, 1984 became due on November 22, 1984 had granted maintenance to the non-petitioner, for herself and for the daughter with retrospective effect i. e. , with effect from March 21, 1984, when the non-petitioner hadmade the application for maintenance under Section 125 (1)of the Code. The arrears of maintenance from March 21, 1984 to November 22, 1984 when the Judicial Magistrate passed the order allowing maintenance. The application under Section 125(3) of the Code was made by the non-petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate on Dec. 12,1985. This application was clearly beyond one year from the date on which the arrears up to Nov. 20,1984 could be issued by the Magistrate. He could only issue warrant for the levy of the maintenance amount which had become due with effect from December 21,1984 because only in that respect the application of the non-petitioner presented on Dec. 12, 1985 was within limitation. "

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance of a decision in jangam Srinivasa Rao vs. Jangam Rajeswari and another, wherein Jagannadha raju, J. of Andhra Pradesh High Court, has observed as follows :

"considering the different views expressed by the various High Courts, i prefer to follow the Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Moddari Bin vs. Sukdeo Bin, 1967 Crl. L. J. 335. The other decisions are Judgments of Single Judges. In my humble opinion the construction put forward by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High court is harmoneous construction and interpretation of the proviso making the proviso applicable to both the limbs of procedure contemplated under sub-sec. 3 of Section 125, Cr. P. C. I hold on point no. 2 that the wife, the maintenance holder cannot accumulate the maintenance for a period beyond 12 months. No application for execution of the maintenance order can be entertained for a period exceeding 12 months, immediately preceding the date of application. I hold this point in favour of the petitioner. In this context, I make it clear that the remedy provided under Section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. is a speedy and expeditious remedy. By virtue of the order of maintenance granted in M. C. 18/84 the right vested in the wife to receive maintenance from the date of the application i. e. 7-12-1983. She may not be able to recover the earlier arrears by resorting to an application under Section 125 (3), Cr. P. C. , but still she would certainly be entitled to claim those arrears by filing a civil suit on the basis that the amount is due to her by virtue of the