The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance must be filed within the prescribed period of one year from the date on which it became due, as per Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

S.L. Kochar, J.

1. This revision has been preferred by the applicant/wife against the order dated 2nd July, 1999 passed by XV Additional District Judge, Indore Criminal Revision No. 49/98 arising out of the order dated 26th Nov., 1998, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Misc. Criminal Case No. 13/98.

2. The essential facts succinctly are mentioned for disposal of this revision as follows :--

On the application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") by the applicant/wife in Misc. Criminal Case No. 457/98, an order dated 15th October, 1992 for grant of maintenance @ 400/- per month from the date of the order, was passed wherein litigation cost of Rs. 500/- has also been imposed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, on 29th Dec., 1992 an application for recovery was filed. On 10th January, 1994, non-applicant/husband deposited Rs. 5,700/- vide receipt No. 43 book No. 6093 in the CCD A/c. This amount was for the period 15th Oct., 92 to 14th Oct., 1993 including the cost of litigation Rs. 500/-.

3. Applicant/wife, aggrieved by the order dated 15th Oct., 1992, granting initial amount of maintenance, filed a revision praying for grant of maintenance amount from the date of application. The said Criminal Revision No. 12/93 was allowed in favour of the applicant by order dated 27th April, 1994 and the learned Revisional Court ordered for payment of maintenance from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 1st July, 1985. Thereafter, the applicant submitted an application on 2nd May, 1995 for amendment in the application for recovery filed on 29th Dec., 1992. This amendment was allowed by the learned Trial Court. After this amendment, recovery warrant was issued for the amount due from 1st July, 1985 @ Rs. 800/- per month.

4. The non-applicant/husband appeared before the Trial Court and raised an objection that in pursuant to order dated 27th April, 1994, passed by II Additional District Judge, allowing the prayer for granting maintenance from the date of application, i.e., 1st July, 1985 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month, the applicant/wife should have filed an application within a period of one year from the date of this order but she did not file any application for recovery of arrears of maintenance amount within one year. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate for issuance recovery after allowing the amendment application in the original application dated 29-12-1992, was bad in law because the amendment application was filed after one year of the passing of the order dated 27th April, 1994. The learned Trial Court has rejected the objection of the non-applicant against which he went up in revision and his prayer was allowed by the impugned order. Learned Revisional Court has held that filing of application dated 2nd May, 1995 for amendment in the original application for recovery of maintenance amount from 1st July, 1985 as per order dated 27th April, 1994 passed in Revision, was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 125(3) of the Code. This order has been challenged. The Revisional Court has also held that on 10th January, 1994, non-applicant had already deposited the amount of Rs. 5,700/-, which was due, therefore, on 10th January, 1994, the application filed by the applicant on 29th December, 1992 under Section 128 of the Code, was automatically disposed of. In the original application, amendment application dated 2nd May, 1995 filed by the wife was not maintainable because of two reasons. Firstly, the original application was not pending and secondly, amendment application dated 2nd May, 1995 was filed after one year from the date of passing of the order dated 27th April, 1994 in Criminal Revision No. 12/93 granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant relied on the decisions of this Court passed in Lalchand v. Hemkant [1986 (I) MPWN 144] and Nanhibai and Ors. v. Netram (2001 Cr