The court affirmed the continuing liability for maintenance under S.125 Cr.P.C., allowing recovery of arrears beyond a year.

1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same dispute and are between the same parties.

2. The petitioner Parimal Chakraborty in CRL. REV. P. 61 of 2009 has challenged the order of the Family Court passed in proceedings under S.125 of Cr.P.C. whereby maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was allowed to the wife Smti. Mamata Bhattacharjee w.e.f. May, 2009.

3. Sri S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the amount of maintenance awarded is very much on the higher side and submits that the petitioner is only earning Rs.7,000/- or Rs.8,000/- per month and cannot be directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month. The learned Family Court has gone through the evidence. I have also gone through the records and I find that the petitioner - husband is a Cable Operator having two different cable operating operations in small areas. His income can reasonably be assessed at Rs.500/- per day or Rs.14,000/- to Rs.15,000/- per month and, therefore, the assessment of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance is not at all on the higher side and calls for no interference in this petition.

4. In CRL. REV. P. 86 of 2013, challenge is made to the order of the Family Court where calculation has been made with regard to the amount of arrears due. In this petition, Sri S. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioner - husband, has urged that the wife could in execution proceedings claim an amount only for a period of one year prior to the institution of the petition for maintenance.

5. The Apex Court in Poongodi and another v. Thangavel , 2013 STPL (Web) 793 SC : AIR 2014 SC 24 dealing with this issue held as follows:
'6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha alias Ushadevi and Another v. B. G. Shivananjappa , 2005 (4) SCC 468 : AIR 2005 SC 2410 it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under S.125 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon and Others. v. Amjad Ali and Others, 1999 (5) SCC 672 : 1999 AIR SCW 4880. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under S.125(3), CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon (supra).
7. The ratio of the decisions in the aforesaid cases squarely apply to the present case. The application dated 05.02.2002 filed by the appellants under S.125(3) was in continuation of the earlier applications and for subsequent periods of default on the part of the Respondent. The first proviso to S.125(3), therefore did not extinguish or limit the entitlement of the appellants to the maintenance granted by the learned trial court, as has been held by the High Court.
8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21.04.2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the date of filing of the Maintenance Petition (MC No. 1/1993) i.e. 4.2.1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September, 2013 payable on or before 7th of October, 2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the Respondent, the learned Trial Court is directed to issue a war