The Petitioner/Husband has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.03.2016 in M.P.No.198 of 2016 in M.P.No.495 of 2012 in M.C.No.145 of 2012 passed by the Learned II Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai.

2. The Learned Learned II Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai, in the impugned order dated 17.03.2016 in M.P.No.198 of 2016 in M.P.No.495 of 2012 in M.C.No.145 of 2012, had observed and ordered the following:

“Petitioner/Wife – Present

Respondent/Husband – Present

Payment is not made. Wife insisted that

arrest may be made.

Arrest by 31.05.16.”

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the trial Court had failed to grant time to file counter to M.P.No.198 of 2016 in M.P.No.495 of 2012 in M.C.No.145 of 2012 on the second hearing date itself. Also, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that as per Section 125 Cr.P.C., if the Petitioner is willing to take back the wife, there is no need for payment of any maintenance.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a legal plea that the Court concerned has got power only to order arrest for nonpayment of maintenance for one month alone.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is paying every month a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards maintenance by means of Demand Draft, which the Petitioner could have brought to the notice of the Court below, if only he was provided with an opportunity to file counter.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that the trial Court while passing orders in M.P.No.495 of 2012 had failed to take into account that the 1st Respondent/Wife had admitted that she is receiving a payment of Rs.200/-per day on the date of filing this petition and thereafter, it will be increased to Rs.250/-.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a stand that the Petitioner/Husband being a practising Junior Advocate met with an accident which has resulted in head injuries resulting in slow activities which do not enable him to earn more.

8. Continuing further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in Execution Petition, a sum of Rs.30,000/- only can be claimed, but in M.P.No.198 of 2016, the Respondents had claimed a sum of Rs.9,30,000/-for 30 months. Moreover, it is also represented on behalf of the Petitioner that in M.P.No.198 of 2016, the Respondents as Petitioners at Column No.12 had averred and claimed the following:

12

Amount claimed in this petition

1. Direct the Respondent to pay Interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month to the EACH (Three) Petitioners and;   from 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013 (12 months x Rs.30,000) = Rs.3,60,000/-   from 01.08.2013 to 31.07.2014 12 months x Rs.30,000 = Rs.3,60,000/-   from 01.08.2014 to 30.04.2015 9 months x Rs.30,000 = Rs.2,70,000/-   Total 30 months = Rs.9,30,000/-

9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code which runs as under:

“125 (3) 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:”

10. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Revision Petitioner/Husband had dispatched the De