Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State

2. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.3.2010 and 25.9.2012 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Banda in Criminal Case no. 400/IX/2012 and order dated 2.5.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Banda in Criminal Revision no. 3 of 2013. It has been further prayed that a mandamus be issued to restrain the courts below from illegally recovering the amount of maintenance from the petitioner pursuant to orders dated 25.9.2012 and 2.5.2013.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents no. 2 t6 4 filed two separate cases for award of maintenance u/s 125 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner alleging themselves to be his wife and children, which were allowed by the Magistrate vide judgment dated 21.10.2003 and the maintenance was awarded as shown in column no. 2 and 3 of following table:

The revisionist challenged the aforesaid order of the Magistrate in two Criminal Revisions being numbers 11 of 2004 and 12 of 2004, which were partly allowed by Special Judge ( SC Act), Banda vide common judgment dated 10.6.2005 and modified the amount of maintenance payable to opposite parties as noted in column nos. 4 and 5 of the above table. During pendency of the revision the opposite parties filed application on 23.3.2004 for recovery of the amount of arrears as awarded by the learned Magistrate amounting to Rs. 84,800/-. However, after the judgment of the revisional Court, the recovery warrant was recalled for correction on the application of the revisionist. Then the opposite parties filed application for amendment on 20.4.2009 and prayed for recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,01,400/- up to date. The learned Magistrate obtained office report and thereafter issued recovery warrant of the balance amount due after adjusting the payment made by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed criminal revision in the Court of Session, which too has been dismissed. Hence this petition has been filed for the reliefs noted in para-2 above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Courts below are illegally recovering the amount of maintenance which is time barred and have allowed amendment contrary to the provisions of law.

5. Per contra learned AGA supporting the impugned orders has submitted that the application for recovery of the amount of maintenance was filed by opposite party no. 2 during the pendency of the revisions and after their disposal on the application of the petitioner, the recovery warrants were recalled for correction, whereupon an application was filed by opposite party no. 2 for amendment, which in fact was not an application for amendment in application, but was to correct the warrant pursuant to the order of the revisional Court and was in tune with the request of the petition. He further submits that the application for recovery of maintenance amount can be filed when it becomes due. He lastly submitted that in the instant case, the amount firstly became due when the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was initially decided by the learned Magistrate and thereafter when the revisions were disposed by the Court of Session.

6. It would be apt to quote Section 125 ( 3) Cr.P.C in order to appreciate the contentions raised