IMPORTANT POINT
The right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a continuing obligation, and while coercive recovery methods are limited to one year, the entitlement to maintenance arrears is not extinguished by the timing of the application.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Dhanesh Kumar Verma, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhakar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anant Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. In this criminal revision filed before this Court a question has been raised as to the propriety of the court concerned in passing an order for payment of arrears towards maintenance for a sum of Rs. 57,000/- by the Additional Principal Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar.

3. Submission advanced is that the arrears that have been directed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 relate to the period starting from the month of March 2021 to September 2022 and since the application for payment thereof came to be filed only on 21.11.2022, it got hit by sub section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that sub section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. puts a fetter upon the right of opposite party to recover the maintenance amount beyond period of one year and accordingly, as has been argued, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has wrongly construed the relevant provision in passing the order.

4. Learned counsel for the revision applicant has also submitted that the very judgment relied upon by the Judge, Family Court helps him out in assailing the order passed by the Judge which very much interprets the provisions.

5. Per contra it is argued by Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party that the first application for recovery of an earlier amount came to be filed on 14.12.2020 and since the claim for maintenance amount is a recurring cause of action therefore, if the applicant husband has failed to pay any amount of maintenance on month to month basis then such cause of action will continue to be rendered as continuing cause of action month by month as such and will not be hit by Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.

6. Thus, it is argued that the judgment which has been relied upon by the Judge, Family Court correctly interprets the law as it holds that the right to recover the amount as far as regular maintenance is concerned, is not hit by Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.

7. Besides the above, it is submitted by Sri Gupta that taking the provisions as have been incorporated by the legislature the monthly maintenance claim does not become a time barred claim. All that is to be seen, according to Mr. Gupta, as to what mode of the recovery of amount is to be adopted. He submits that a coercive measure by arresting a person may not be a remedy available to the opposite party beyond the prescribed period of one year but a right to claim maintenance or arrears of maintenance pursuant thereto in order to claim maintenance month by month, does not get adversely affected or prejudiced merely for an application being filed beyond prescribed period of one year.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that the order of maintenance allowing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was passed on 09.05.2018 very clearly provided that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was being granted and Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid towards the maintenance to the opposite party-applicant as the opposite party was held entitled to a maintenance from her husband. This thus goes unequally that monthly maintenance was to be paid by the present applicant to the opposite party for rearing up the minor children. However, it transpires further from the record that earlier also some arrears had became due to be paid to the opposite party at the end of the applicant and accordingly she had moved an application on 14.12.2020 to recover the amount of Rs. 24,000/- which was subsequently paid by the applicant to the opposite party. However, later on he again did not pay the amount as far as arrears are concerned and therefore, amount accrued to Rs. 27,000/- between March 2021 and September 2022. It is for the recovery of this amount that the application came to be moved by the opposite part