By way of this petition under Sec tion 482 of Cr. P. C. the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 24-11-2003, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No. 23 of 2003 Smt. Durga Devi vs. Laxman Singh as well as judgment and order dated 19-7-2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in criminal revision no. 17 of 2003 Laxman Singh vs. Smt. Durga Devi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the husband of respond ent no. 2. An application under Section 125 of Cr. PC. was filed by respondent no. 2 on 10-6-1992 before Judicial Mag istrate, 1st, Didihat, District Pithoragarh, for maintenance. The learned Magistrate allowed the application vide order dated 16-4-1998 and awarded the mainte nance of Rs. 300/- per month to respond ent no. 2. As the petitioner could not make the payment of certain amount of maintenance to respondent no. 2,

therefore, respondent no. 2 moved an appli cation under Section 125 (3) of Cr. P. C. on 5-12-2000 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Didihat, District Pithoragarh for recovery of Rs. 30,3007 -. This appli cation was allowed vide order dated 24-11-2003 by the Judicial Magistrate and an order for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,300/- was passed. The petitioner preferred a revision against the aforesaid order and the revisional court partly al lowed the revision directing therein that respondent no. 2 shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 21,6707- from the petitioner and failing which the petitioner shall have to go for simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid both the orders, the petitioner has pre ferred this petition before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. for respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

5. None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2-Smt. Durga Devi inspite of sufficient service of notice upon her.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the provisions of Section 125 of Cr. P. C. and has submitted that in view of sub-sec tion (3) of Section 125 of Cr. PC. , the application for recovery of arrear had to be moved within a period of one year from the date of the order when the amount of maintenance became due. He has submitted that period of limitation for filing the application under Section 125 (3) Cr. P. C. was upto 16th April, 1999 as the order for payment of mainte nance allowance was passed on 16-4-1998, therefore, the application filed by respondent no. 2 on 5-12-2000 was clearly time barred in view of the provi sions of Section 125 (3) of Cr. P. C.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two decisions of Allahabad High Court in support of his contention

(i) Mohd. Idrish Khan vs. Smt. Akila Khatoon & others, re ported in 1994 (31) ACC 808 (ii) Hifazat Husain vs. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1998 (2) ACC 866.

8. Sub-section 3 of Section 125 of Cr. P. C. lays down "if any person so or dered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magis trate 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 months allowance remaining unpaid for a term which may extend to one month or un til payment if sooner made. "

9. A proviso has been added to this sub-section which is as follows : 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. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the remedy to respondent no. 2, who is the wife of the petitioner, for re leasing the maintenance allowance which have become 12 months old is barred under this provision. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 125 (3) of Cr. P. C. , the petitioner cannot be co- ercedto pay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document