IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100234 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

SMT. AKHTHARKHANUM W/O. FATEH AHMED HALLIYALKAR @ KAKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: GANDHI NAGAR, DHARWAD.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI R.H. ANGADI, ADV. AND SRI PRAKASH R.BADIGER, ADV. FOR PETITIONER)

AND:

FATEH AHMED S/O. HALLIYALKAR @ KAKAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, F.D.A. IN PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI, R/O: TIPPU SULTAN NAGAR, PEERANWADI, BELAGAVI.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI SURESH SHETTEMMANAVAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.04.2017 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.241 OF 2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 29.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)

This petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is by the wife against her husband, challenging the order passed by the Family Court by which her petition for recovery of maintenance for a period beyond 12 months from the date of petition came to be rejected, holding that it is barred by limitation.

2. The marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 10.05.1994. It is alleged that as the respondent started ill treating the petitioner, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Since he did not provide any maintenance to her, she approached the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad in Crl.Misc.No.124/07. It was allowed granting maintenance at Rs.5000/- per month. In Crl.P.No.10871/2011 filed by the respondent, this Court reduced the maintenance to Rs.2500/- per month. Later, petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.246/2014 before the Family Court wherein the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.4000/- per month vide order dated 27.09.2016. Since respondent failed to comply with the order passed by the Family Court, petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.241/2015 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C for enforcing the order. However, by the impugned order, the Family Court has dismissed the same on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court contending that it is not only erroneous, but also perverse, capricious and contrary to the settled principles of law and request to set aside. Section 125(3) does not stipulate any limitation. The same is not properly understood by the trial Court. Petitioner is entitled to receive the maintenance. Her legitimate right to receive the maintenance cannot be denied. Therefore order is liable to be set aside and hence the petition.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decision:

(i) Poongodi and others Vs Thangavel (Poongodi)

5. After due service of notice, respondent has appeared through counsel.

6. Heard arguments of both side and perused the record.

7. The short question that arises for consideration is whether any limitation is prescribed for enforcing the order granting maintenance under Section 125 CR.P.C?

8. Section 125 of Cr.P.C makes provision for order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. It provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain, his wife who is unable to maintain herself or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself or his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter), who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of (2013) 10 SCC 618 any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself or his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.

9. On proo