The limitation for recovery of maintenance amount should be computed from the date on which it became due, and recovery can be ordered for the amount falling due during the pendency of the recovery proceedings initiated for past arrears.

( 1 ) LEARNED single Judge Shri Justice S. K. Dubey (as he then was) has referred the instant revision to larger Bench, in order to decide the question whether the application filed for recovery of the amount of previous one year under section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can continue for recovery of the future amount also and whether it is necessary to file separate application/applications for the amount falling due in future during the pendency of the said proceedings. As learned Single Judge has referred the entire revision, we are deciding the same after hearing the parties on merits.

( 2 ) LEARNED single Judge found conflict in the judicial pronouncements of this Court in the case of Loonchand v. Hemkanta (Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1985) decided on 5-3-1986 (1986) 1 MPWN (SN) 144 decided by Shri Justice K. I. Shrivastava, learned single Judge and in the case of Vimal Kumar v. Smt. Siya Bai (Criminal Revision No. 92/91 (J) decided on 28-4-93 by Shri Justice D. K. Jain (as he then was) (1993) 2 MPWN 141. Though the learned single Judge has expressed his agreement with the view taken in the case of Loonchand v. Hemkanta (supra), however, referred the matter to the larger Bench in view of the contrary view taken in the case Vimal Kumar v. Smt. Siya Bai (supra ). The learned Single Judge referred the matter to the larger Bench, considering it to be of general importance and day to day recurrence. That is how the matter has travelled to us for resolving the controversy.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners Nanhi Bai and her 2 minor children applied under section 125 Cr. P. C. and an order was passed on 14-3-91 granting maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife (petitioner No. 1) and Rs. 100/- each to the two minor children (Petitioners No. 2 and 3), total Rs. 400/- per month, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 23/89, against respondent, which order attained finality.

( 4 ) ON 22-12-92, the petitioners i. e. wife and the two minor children filed an application u/s. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. for execution alleging that the respondent-husband Netram had paid maintenance of only one month and the remaining amount was not paid. Hence, an amount of Rs. 4,800/- was claimed from November, 1991 to November 1992. In the same case another application was moved on 9-2-94 mentioning therein that in spite of the order for payment of monthly maintenance and in spite of the pendency of the recovery proceedings, the respondent-husband was not making any payment nor he was attending the Court and that petitioner No. 1 was in a great distress as she was unable to maintain herself and her two minor children, hence, for recovery of the amount due, a warrant of arrest be issued against the respondent-husband. In this application dt. 9-2-94 it was made clear that future amount i. e. subsequent to filing of application in December, 1992 has also not been paid. The amount which had fallen due subsequent to the filing of execution was also not paid. However, it appears that warrant was issued as per prayer made on 9-2-94 for a sum of Rs. 10,400/- for the period from 1-12-91 to 31-1-94 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. It is significant to mention here that the amount of Rs. 10,400/- includes the amount of maintenance which had fallen due and not paid during the pendency of the execution application filed on 22-12-92 which was for recovery of the amount of Rs. 4800/- for the period November 1991 to November 1992. The arrest warrant was issued by the Court on 15-3-94 owing to non-payment of Rs. 10,400/ -.

( 5 ) IT appears that on 7-3-94, an application was filed by the respondent-husband which was fixed by the Court of J. M. F. C. for consideration on 8-3-94. In the application the respondent contended that the wife (petitioner No. 1), was leading-an-adulterous life; she was having pregnancy conceived from some other person and thus she has be