1. This revision is referred to the Larger Bench to determine the following question:

Whether on account of delay in filing the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, application is liable to be dismissed?

2. Right to get maintenance to wife, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves is given under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

3. The controversy has arisen on account of conflicting judgments of this Court on this question. In the case of Kuntibai w/o Alakhram v. Alakhram s/o Jaggulal 1998 (2) MPLJ 635, it is held that the application on the ground of long delay in filing the application for maintenance is liable to be rejected. However, in this case this Court held that besides long delay in filing the application, it has been found by the Courts below that there was no justification for the wife to live separate from her husband and she had sufficient means to maintain herself. She has resources by way of agricultural income, which was sufficient to meet her needs and the application was rejected. However, relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ambaram v. Jankibai 1991 (2) MPWN 121 and Golla Seetharamulu v. Golla Rathanamman 1991 Cr.LJ 1533, it is held that no limitation is prescribed for filing an application for maintenance.

4. In the case of Bhaggobai v. State of M.P. 1984 MPWN 504, it is held that remedy under Section 125 of the Code 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 required to enforce strict legal rights according to the 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 the Code. The powers vested in the Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code are discretionary. If there is inordinate delay in filing an application under Section 125 of the Code, 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 the Code. In the case of Ambaram (supra), it is held that the wife after a period of 12 years of separately residing again started living with the husband and has also conceived a child from him. Thereafter, due to neglect of husband again, the wife was compelled to prefer an application for grant of maintenance. It was held that in these circumstances if cannot be said that the petition was filed belatedly by her and accordingly the wife could not be faulted with therefor.

5. We will consider the question involved in the case and the question whether Bhaggobai and Kuntibai (supra), have laid down the law correctly. In the context it will be useful to reproduce Section 125 of the Code:

125. Order of maintenance of wives, children and parents. - (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child