Continuous liability to pay maintenance under S.125 is not barred by limitation, ensuring protection of the wife's rights.

1. This revision arose out of the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda in Exn. Case No. 2(M) of 2011 in a proceeding under S.128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out of Exn. Case No. 292(M) / 2000 under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.

2. In the background of misc. case the fact in a nutshell is that the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case No. 292(M) / 2000 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 27.12.2010, the petitioner filed a revision before the Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Justice T. K. Gupta, by His Lordship's order dated 30.11.2011, was pleased to dismiss the revisional application.

4. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner has also filed O.C. suit No. 212/95 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Jr. Div., 1st Court at Malda challenging the marriage between them. That suit was dismissed by the learned court and a second appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. The Opposite Party No. 2 put the said order of learned Magistrate in execution by filing a petition under S.125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with S.128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate, Malda in case No. 2(M) / 2011 with a prayer for an order directing the husband to pay Rs. 192000/- for 128 months from the period from April, 2000 to December, 2010.

5. The petitioner entered appearance in the said execution proceedings but the learned Magistrate without hearing the petitioner, was pleased to pass an order on 28.5.2012 for payment. The application for realization of maintenance for the period of 128 months from 18.4.2000 to December, 2011 is not permissible.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 28.5.2012, the petitioner filed revision before the Hon'ble Court as CRR No. 1275 of 2012 praying for quashing of the case.

7. The learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner and issued warrant on 23.7.2012.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Opposite Party at length. I have duly considered their submissions and perused the impugned order.

9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for realization of maintenance has to be filed within one year from the date it becomes due but in the instant case, such application was filed on the date of 18.4.2000 and hence the case is not maintainable.

10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited before me a decision as reported in (2007) 2 Cal Cr LR (Cal) 116. It was propounded there that application for execution to be filed within one year from the date of amount is due. That judgment does not appear to be helping to the present petitioner, being distinguishable.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that there is no question of barred by limitation because original application was filed in the year 2000. The date of judgment was 27.12.10. It was directed therein that the amount of maintenance should take effect from the date of filing of this case. Thereafter, the petitioner, challenging that order, filed CRR No. 149/2011 and that was dismissed. Further, it appears that the present petitioner again challenged the order dated 28.5.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate in Exn. Case No. 2M / 2011 in a proceeding under S.128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arising out