1. This application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 29.1.98, in Cr. Rev. No. 43/94, by Ist. A.S.J. Durg, affirming the order dated 20.1.94 in Cri. Case No. 72/93, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, refusing to grant maintenance to the petitioner/wife.

2. The petitioner/wife who was married to the non-applicant/husband about 30 years prior to the filing of the application had four daughters from him, alleged that the non-applicant/husband has refused to maintain her for the last 12 years, and that she is unable to maintain herself, as she is a labourer. It was alleged by her that the non-applicant/husband had developed illicit relations with another woman, on account of which, he started misbehaving and torturing the petitioner/wife and turned her out from his home.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom application u/s 125Cr.P.C. was filed, has found that there was no justification for the petitioner/wife to live separately from the non-applicant/husband, and that the non-applicant/husband has no means to maintain the petitioner/wife. It was further held that the petitioner/wife had sufficient means to maintain herself, accordingly her petition for grant of maintenance was dismissed.

4. In revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the application was inordinately delayed and had been filed after about 12 years after she started living separately from the non-applicant/husband. The findings of the lower Court that there was no justification for the petitioner/wife to live separately from the non-applicant/husband, were also confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It has also been held that the non-applicant/husband did not marry another woman, till the petitioner/wife was living with him as his wife and his second marriage with another woman took place after 4-5 years after the petitioner/wife had left him without any justification. In view of above, it was held that there was no merit in the revision and it was accordingly dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife has urged that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an application for maintenance, and therefore, her petition could not have been dismissed on that ground. He has placed reliance on Ambaram v. Jankibai [1991 (II) MPWN 121] and on Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamma (1991 CrLJ 1533).

6. It may be noticed in the instant case that the petition for maintenance was filed after a period of about 12 years, after the alleged refusal or neglect by the non-applicant/husband to maintain the wife. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner/wife for the inordinate delay as above, in filing the application for maintenance.

7. In Bhaggo Bai v. State of M.P. (1984 MPWN Notes 504), it was observed by this Court that the remedy u/S 125 of Cr. P.C. is intended to be speedy remedy for the protection of a deserted wife or a neglected child from starvation, while the civil liability of the father or the husband to maintain his child or wife has to be determined by the Civil Court in accordance with the personal law applicable to the parties. The functions of the Magistrate and the Civil Court are distinctly different. The Magistrate has to deal with the emergency while the Civil Court is to enforce strict legal rights according to personal law of the parties. A wife, who files an application after maintaining herself for 10 or 15 years, certainly is not entitled to get relief under the emergency provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The powers vested in the Magistrate under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. are discretionary. If there is inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C., by the wife, without there being any cogent reason or explanation for the delay; the Magistrate in the judicious exercise of discretion, would be fully justified in dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C.

8. In Ambaram's case (supra)