J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

1. This is a case that clamours for the exercise of judicial conscience to address the conundrum of whether an individual‟s right to recover arrears in maintenance subsists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in section 125(3) Cr.P.C. It warrants our endeavour to determine whether the jurisprudential principle of Ubi jus ibiremedium which posits that every right has a commensurate remedy stands true when it is confronted with the letter of the law i.e. Section 125 Cr.P.C in this instance.

2. An Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is preferred against the judgment dated 17.05.2019 dismissing the suit filed by Smt. Nirmal Bajaj on behalf of minor Vasu Bajaj, for recovery of Rs.2,78,800/-on account of the maintenance by the Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

3. The facts in brief are that the Smt. Nirmal Bajaj, mother of the Appellant got married to Respondent Shri Rakesh Bajaj on 14.12.1999 according to Hindu Marriage Rites and Ceremonies. One child i.e. Master Vasu Bajaj, the Appellant, was born from the said wedlock on 13.11.2000. Disputes arose between the parties